Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 27 February 10, 2014 

Part III 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External 

Power Supplies; Final Rule 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7846 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005] 

RIN 1904–AB57 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for External 

Power Supplies 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

as amended, today’s final rule amends 

the energy conservation standards that 

currently apply to certain external 

power supplies and establishes new 

energy conservation standards for other 

external power supplies that are 

currently not required to meet such 

standards. Through its analysis, DOE 

has determined that these changes 

satisfy EPCA’s requirements that any 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for these products result in 

the significant conservation of energy 

and be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

April 11, 2014. Compliance with the 

new and amended standards established 

for EPSs in today’s final rule is February 

10, 2016. 

The incorporation by reference of a 

certain publication listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on April 11, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket can be accessed from the 

regulations.gov homepage by searching 

for Docket ID EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0005. The regulations.gov Web page 

contains simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9870. Email: 

battery_chargers_and_external_power_

supplies@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

michael.kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into part 

430 the following industry standard: 

International Efficiency Marking 

Protocol for External Power Supplies, 

Version 3.0 

The above referenced document has 

been added to the docket for this 

rulemaking and can be downloaded 

from Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005 

on Regulations.gov. 

The document is discussed in section 

IV.O of this notice. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

EPSs 

III. General Discussion 

A. Compliance Date 

B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

1. General 

2. Definition of Consumer Product 

3. Power Supplies for Solid State Lighting 

4. Medical Devices 

5. Security and Life Safety Equipment 

6. Service Parts and Spare Parts 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Market Assessment 

2. Product Classes 

a. Proposed EPS Product Classes 

b. Differentiating Between Direct and 

Indirect Operation EPSs 

c. Multiple-Voltage 

d. Low-Voltage, High-Current EPSs 

e. Final EPS Product Classes 

3. Technology Assessment 

a. EPS Efficiency Metrics 

b. EPS Technology Options 

c. High-Power EPSs 

d. Power Factor 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Representative Product Classes and 

Representative Units 

2. EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) 

3. EPS Engineering Analysis Methodology 

4. EPS Engineering Results 

5. EPS Equation Scaling 

6. Proposed Standards 

a. Product Classes B, C, D, and E 

b. Product Class X 

c. Product Class H 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Manufacturer Selling Price 

2. Markups 

3. Sales Tax 

4. Installation Cost 

5. Maintenance Cost 

6. Product Price Forecast 

7. Unit Energy Consumption 

8. Electricity Prices 

9. Electricity Price Trends 

10. Lifetime 

11. Discount Rate 

12. Sectors Analyzed 

13. Base Case Market Efficiency 

Distribution 

14. Compliance Date 

15. Payback Period Inputs 

G. Shipments Analysis 

1. Shipment Growth Rate 

2. Product Class Lifetime 

3. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Price Trends 

2. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings 

3. Unit Costs 

4. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit 

5. Energy Prices 

6. National Energy Savings 

7. Discount Rates 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Manufacturer Production Costs 

2. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

3. Markup Scenarios 

4. Impacts on Small Businesses 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

O. Marking Requirements 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standards Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7847 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Manufacturer Subgroups 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impact on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility and Performance of the 

Products 

5. Impact on Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

8. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusions 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for EPS Product 

Class B 

2. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for EPS Product 

Class X 

3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for EPS Product 

Class H 

4. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 

5. Stakeholder Comments on Alternatives 

to Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

Today’s notice announces the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 

amended and new energy conservation 

standards for certain classes of external 

power supplies (EPSs). These standards, 

which are based on a series of 

mathematical equations that vary based 

on output power, will affect a wide 

variety of EPSs used in a wide variety 

of consumer applications. 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.2 Pursuant to EPCA, any 

new and amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE prescribes for certain 

products, such as EPSs, shall be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE determines is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 

new and amended standard must result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance 

with these provisions, DOE is amending 

the standards for certain EPSs—those 

devices that are already regulated by 

standards enacted by Congress in 

2007—and establishing new standards 

for EPSs that have not yet been 

regulated by DOE. These standards, 

which prescribe a minimum average 

efficiency during active mode (i.e. when 

an EPS is plugged into the main 

electricity supply and is supplying 

power in response to a load demand 

from another connected device) and a 

maximum power consumption level 

during no-load mode (i.e. when an EPS 

is plugged into the main electricity 

supply but is not supplying any power 

in response to a demand load from 

another connected device), are 

expressed as a function of the nameplate 

output power (i.e. the power output of 

the EPS). These standards are shown in 

Table I–1. and will apply to all products 

listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, 

or imported into, the United States 

starting on February 10, 2016. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7848 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7849 

The new and amended standards 

being adopted today apply to all direct 

operation EPSs, both Class A and nonClass A, with the exceptions noted in 

the footnote to Table I–1. These 

exemptions are discussed in more detail 

in Section IV.A.2.d and Section B.5. 

Note that the standards established by 

Congress for Class A EPSs will continue 

in force for all Class A EPSs, including 

indirect operation EPSs. Therefore, all 

indirect operation Class A EPSs must 

continue to meet the standards 

established by Congress at efficiency 

level IV (discussed in Section II.B.1), 

while direct operation Class A EPSs will 

be required to meet the more stringent 

standards being adopted today. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I–2 presents DOE’s evaluation 

of the economic impacts of today’s 

standards on EPS consumers, as 

measured by the average life-cycle cost 

(LCC) savings, the median payback 

period, and the average lifetime. The 

average LCC savings are positive and the 

median payback periods are less than 

the average lifetimes for all product 

classes for which consumers are 

impacted by the standards. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2013 to 2044). Using a real discount 

rate of 7.1 percent, DOE estimates that 

the industry net present value (INPV) 

for manufacturers of EPSs is $274.0 

million in 2012$. Under today’s 

standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 18.7 

percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $51.2 million. 

Additionally, based on DOE’s 

interviews with the manufacturers of 

EPSs no domestic OEM EPS 

manufacturers were identified and 

therefore, DOE does not expect any 

plant closings or significant loss of 

employment. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.003</GPH> er10fe14.004</GPH>
7850 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2012 dollars and are discounted to 

2013. 

4Total residential energy use in 2012 was 20.195 

quads. See: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/

monthly/?src=Total-f3# consumption 

5A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. 6 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013) 

Reference case, which generally represents current 

legislation and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

December 31, 2012. 

7Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf 

8 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

C. National Benefits 3

DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s 

standards would save a significant 

amount of energy. The lifetime savings 

for EPSs purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of 

compliance with new and amended 

standards (2015–2044) amount to 0.94 

quads. The annual energy savings in 

2030 amount to 0.15 percent of total 

residential energy use in 2012.4

The estimated cumulative net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of today’s standards for EPSs 

ranges from $1.9 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $3.8 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs for 

products purchased in 2015–2044. 

In addition, today’s standards are 

projected to yield significant 

environmental benefits. The energy 

savings would result in cumulative 

greenhouse gas emission reductions of 

approximately 47.0 million metric tons 

(Mt) 5 of carbon dioxide (CO2), 81.7 

thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

15.0 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and 0.1 tons of mercury (Hg).6

Through 2030, the estimated energy 

savings would result in cumulative 

emissions reductions of 23.6 Mt of CO2. 

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed and recently updated by an 

interagency process.7 The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section 

IV.L. DOE estimates that the net present 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions is between $0.4 billion and 

$4.7 billion. DOE also estimates that the 

net present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reductions is $0.014 billion at 

a 7-percent discount rate and $0.024 

billion at a 3-percent discount rate.8

Table I–3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from today’s standards for EPSs. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7851 

9 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2013, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30- 

year period (2013 through 2042) that yields the 

same present value. The fixed annual payment is 

the annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards, for products sold in 2015– 

2044, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from operating the product 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase and 

installation costs, which is another way 

of representing consumer NPV), plus (2) 

the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.9

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the value of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

EPSs shipped in 2015–2044. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the 

present value of all future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one metric ton of carbon 

dioxide in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESer10fe14.005</GPH>
7852 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of today’s standards are shown in 

Table I–4. The results under the primary 

estimate are as follows. Using a 7- 

percent discount rate for benefits and 

costs other than CO2 reduction, for 

which DOE used a 3-percent discount 

rate along with the average SCC series 

that uses a 3-percent discount rate, the 

cost of the standards in today’s rule is 

$147 million per year in increased 

equipment costs to consumers, while 

the benefits are $293 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs to 

consumers, $77 million in CO2

reductions, and $1.1 million in reduced 

NOX emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $223 million per 

year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for 

all benefits and costs and the average 

SCC series, the cost of the standards in 

today’s rule is $162 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $350 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $77 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $1.2 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $266 million per 

year. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7853 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESer10fe14.006</GPH>
7854 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

10For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 11All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

D. Conclusion 

Based on the analyses culminating in 

this final rule, DOE found the benefits 

to the Nation of the standards (energy 

savings, consumer LCC savings, positive 

NPV of consumer benefit, and emission 

reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss 

of INPV and LCC increases for some 

users of these products). DOE has 

concluded that the standards in today’s 

final rule represent the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s final rule, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for EPSs. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B10 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’),11 which includes the types 

of EPSs that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) (DOE 

notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the 

agency must periodically review its 

already established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product. Under 

this requirement, the next review that 

DOE would need to conduct must occur 

no later than six years from the issuance 

of a final rule establishing or amending 

a standard for a covered product.) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling, and DOE 

implements the remainder of the 

program. The labeling of EPSs, however, 

is one of the few exceptions for which 

either agency may establish 

requirements as needed. See 42 U.S.C. 

6294(a)(5)(A). Subject to certain criteria 

and conditions, DOE is required to 

develop test procedures to measure the 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of each 

covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use the prescribed DOE test procedure 

as the basis for certifying to DOE that 

their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA and 

when making representations to the 

public regarding the energy use or 

efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE 

must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with standards adopted pursuant to 

EPCA. Id. The DOE test procedures for 

EPSs currently appear at title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

430, subpart B, appendix Z. See also 76 

FR 31750 (June 1, 2011) (finalizing the 

most recent amendment to the test 

procedures for EPSs). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new and 

amended standards for covered 

products. As indicated above, any new 

and amended standard for a covered 

product must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE 

may not adopt any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) For certain products, 

including EPSs, if no test procedure has 

been established for the product, or (2) 

if DOE determines by rule that the new 

and amended standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) 

In deciding whether a new and 

amended standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESer10fe14.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7855 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe a new and amended standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of 

any covered product type (or class) 

having performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or 

class of covered product that has two or 

more subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to such type or class 

of product for any group of covered 

products that have the same function or 

intended use if DOE determines that 

products within such group (A) 

consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

such a feature and other factors DOE 

deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 

prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally preempt State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d). The 

energy conservation standards 

established in this rule will preempt 

relevant State laws or regulations on 

February 10, 2016. 

Also, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in section 310(3) of EISA 

2007, any final rule for new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

promulgated after July 1, 2010, are 

required to address standby mode and 

off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 

adopts a standard for a covered product 

after that date, it must, if justified by the 

criteria for adoption of standards under 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into the standard, or, if that is not 

feasible, adopt a separate standard for 

such energy use for that product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current 

test procedures and standards for EPSs 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use, as do the standards adopted 

in this final rule. 

Finally, Congress created a series of 

energy conservation requirements for 

certain types of EPSs—those EPSs that 

meet the ‘‘Class A’’ criteria. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(3) (establishing 

standards for Class A EPSs) and 

6291(36)(C) (defining what a Class A 

EPS is). Congress clarified the 

application of these standards in a 

subsequent revision to EPCA by creating 

an exclusion for certain types of Class 

A EPSs. In particular, EPSs that are 

designed to be used with security or life 

safety alarm or surveillance system that 

are manufactured prior to 2017 are not 

required to meet the no-load mode 

requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(3)(E) (detailing criteria for 

satisfying the exclusion requirements). 

The standards in today’s final rule are 

consistent with these Congressionallyenacted provisions. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

Section 301 of EISA 2007 established 

minimum energy conservation 

standards for Class A EPSs, which 

became effective on July 1, 2008. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)). Class A EPSs are 

types of EPSs defined by Congress that 

meet certain design criteria and that are 

not devices regulated by the Food and 

Drug Administration as medical devices 

or that power the charger of a 

detachable battery pack or the battery of 

a product that is fully or primarily 

motor operated. See 42 U.S.C. 

6291(36)(C)(i)–(ii). The current 

standards for Class A EPSs are set forth 

in Table II.1. 

Currently, there are no Federal energy 

conservation standards for EPSs falling 

outside of Class A. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

EPSs 

Section 135 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109– 

58 (Aug. 8, 2005), amended sections 321 

and 325 of EPCA by defining the term 

‘‘external power supply.’’ That 

provision also directed DOE to prescribe 

test procedures related to the energy 

consumption of EPSs and to issue a 

final rule that determines whether 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.008</GPH>
7856 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

12To help ensure that the standards Congress set 

were not applied in an overly broad fashion, DOE 

applied the statutory exclusion not only to those 

EPSs that require FDA listing and approval but also 

to any EPS that provides power to a medical device. 

13See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/23. 

energy conservation standards shall be 

issued for EPSs or classes of EPSs. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A) and (E)) 

On December 8, 2006, DOE complied 

with the first of these requirements by 

publishing a final rule that prescribed 

test procedures for a variety of products, 

including EPSs. 71 FR 71340. See also 

10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix 

Z (‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of External 

Power Supplies’’) (codifying the EPS 

test procedure). 

On December 19, 2007, Congress 

enacted EISA 2007, which, among other 

things, amended sections 321, 323, and 

325 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291, 6293, and 

6295). As part of these amendments, 

EISA 2007 supplemented the EPS 

definition, which the statute defines as 

an external power supply circuit ‘‘used 

to convert household electric current 

into DC current or lower-voltage AC 

current to operate a consumer product.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) In particular, 

Section 301 of EISA 2007 created a 

subset of EPSs called ‘‘Class A External 

Power Supplies,’’ which consists of, 

among other elements, those EPSs that 

can convert to only 1 AC or DC output 

voltage at a time and have a nameplate 

output power of no more than 250 watts 

(W). The Class A definition, as noted 

earlier, excludes any device requiring 

Federal Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) listing and approval as a medical 

device in accordance with section 513 

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (21 U.S.C. 360(c)) along with 

devices that power the charger of a 

detachable battery pack or that charge 

the battery of a product that is fully or 

primarily motor operated. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(36)(C)) Section 301 of EISA 2007 

also established energy conservation 

standards for Class A EPSs that became 

effective on July 1, 2008, and directed 

DOE to conduct an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking to review those 

standards. 

Additionally, section 309 of EISA 

2007 amended section 325(u)(1)(E) of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)) by 

directing DOE to issue a final rule 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards for battery chargers or classes 

of battery chargers or to determine that 

no energy conservation standard is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. To satisfy these 

requirements, along with those for EPSs, 

as noted later, DOE chose to bundle the 

rulemakings for these separate products 

together into a single rulemaking effort. 

The rulemaking requirements contained 

in sections 301 and 309 of EISA 2007 

also effectively superseded the prior 

determination analysis that EPACT 2005 

required DOE to conduct. 

Section 309 of EISA 2007 also 

instructed DOE to issue a final rule to 

determine whether DOE should issue 

energy conservation standards for EPSs 

or classes of EPSs by no later than two 

years after EISA 2007’s enactment. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) Because 

Congress had already set standards for 

Class A devices, DOE interpreted this 

determination requirement as applying 

solely to assessing whether energy 

conservation standards would be 

warranted for EPSs that fall outside of 

the Class A definition, i.e., non-Class A 

EPSs. Non-Class A EPSs include those 

devices that (1) have a nameplate output 

power greater than 250 watts, (2) are 

able to convert to more than one AC or 

DC output voltage simultaneously, and 

(3) are specifically excluded from 

coverage under the Class A EPS 

definition in EISA 2007 by virtue of 

their application (i.e. EPSs used with 

medical devices or that power chargers 

of detachable battery packs or batteries 

of products that are motor-operated).12

Finally, section 310 of EISA 2007 

established definitions for active, 

standby, and off modes, and directed 

DOE to amend its existing test 

procedures for EPSs to measure the 

energy consumed in standby mode and 

off mode. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)(i)) 

Consequently, DOE published a final 

rule incorporating standby- and offmode measurements into the DOE test 

procedure. See 74 FR 13318 (March 27, 

2009) DOE later amended its test 

procedure for EPSs by including a 

measurement method for multiplevoltage EPSs and clarified certain 

definitions within the single voltage 

EPS test procedure. See 76 FR 31750 

(June 1, 2011) 

DOE initiated its current rulemaking 

effort for these products by issuing the 

Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document for 

Battery Chargers and External Power 

Supplies (the framework document), 

which explained, among other things, 

the issues, analyses, and process DOE 

would follow in developing potential 

standards for non-Class A EPSs and 

amended standards for Class A EPSs. 

See http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BTSTD-0005-0005. 74 FR 26816 (June 4, 

2009). DOE also published a notice of 

proposed determination regarding the 

setting of standards for non-Class A 

EPSs. 74 FR 56928 (November 3, 2009). 

These notices were followed by a final 

determination published on May 14, 

2010, 75 FR 27170, which concluded 

that energy conservation standards for 

non-Class A EPSs appeared to be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would be 

likely to result in significant energy 

savings. Consequently, DOE decided to 

include non-Class A EPSs in the present 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for battery chargers and 

EPSs.13

On September 15, 2010, having 

considered comments from interested 

parties, gathered additional information, 

and performed preliminary analyses for 

the purpose of developing potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

for Class A EPSs and new energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers and non-Class A EPSs, DOE 

announced a public meeting and the 

availability on its Web site of a 

preliminary technical support document 

(preliminary TSD). 75 FR 56021. The 

preliminary TSD discussed the 

comments DOE had received in 

response to the framework document 

and described the actions DOE had 

taken up to this point, the analytical 

framework DOE was using, and the 

content and results of DOE’s 

preliminary analyses. Id. at 56023, 

56024. DOE convened the public 

meeting to discuss and receive 

comments on: (1) The product classes 

DOE analyzed, (2) the analytical 

framework, models, and tools that DOE 

was using to evaluate potential 

standards, (3) the results of the 

preliminary analyses performed by 

DOE, (4) potential standard levels that 

DOE might consider, and (5) other 

issues participants believed were 

relevant to the rulemaking. Id. at 56021, 

56024. DOE also invited written 

comments on these matters. The public 

meeting took place on October 13, 2010. 

Many interested parties participated by 

submitting written comments. 

DOE published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) on March 27, 2012. 

77 FR 18478. Shortly after, DOE also 

published on its Web site the complete 

TSD for the proposed rule, which 

incorporated the complete analyses DOE 

conducted and technical documentation 

for each analysis. The NOPR TSD 

included the LCC spreadsheet, the 

national impact analysis spreadsheet, 

and the manufacturer impact analysis 

(MIA) spreadsheet—all of which are 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. In the March 2012 NOPR, 

in addition to proposing potential 

standards for battery chargers, DOE 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7857 

proposed amended energy conservation 

standards for EPSs as follows: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.009</GPH>
7858 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

In the March 2012 NOPR, DOE 

identified 36 specific issues related to 

battery chargers and EPSs on which it 

was particularly interested in receiving 

comments. Id. at 18642–18644. DOE 

also sought comments and data that 

would allow DOE to further bring clarity 

to the issues surrounding battery 

chargers and EPSs, and determine how 

the issues discussed in the March 2012 

NOPR could be adequately addressed. 

DOE also held a public meeting in 

Washington, DC, on May 2, 2012, to 

solicit comment and information from 

the public relevant to the proposed rule. 

Finally, DOE received many written 

comments on these and other issues in 

response to the March 2012 NOPR. All 

commenters, along with their 

corresponding abbreviations and 

organization type, are listed in Table II– 

3. In today’s notice, DOE summarizes 

and addresses the issues these 

commenters raised that relate to EPSs. 

The March 2012 NOPR included 

additional, detailed background 

information on the history of this 

rulemaking. See id. at 18493– 18495. 

TABLE II–3—LIST OF COMMENTERS

Organization Abbreviation Organization type 

ARRIS Group, Inc. .................................................................................. ARRIS Group ................................. Manufacturer. 

ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NEEP, and NEEA ....................................... ASAP, et al. ................................... Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ...................................... AHAM ............................................ Industry Trade Association. 

Brother International Corporation ............................................................ Brother International ...................... Manufacturer. 

California Energy Commission ................................................................ California Energy Commission ...... State Entity. 

California Investor-Owned Utilities .......................................................... CA IOUs ........................................ Utilities. 

Cobra Electronics Corporation ................................................................ Cobra Electronics .......................... Manufacturer. 

Consumer Electronics Association .......................................................... CEA ............................................... Industry Trade Association. 

Delta-Q Technologies Corp. .................................................................... Delta-Q Technologies .................... Manufacturer. 

Dual-Lite, a Division of Hubbell Lighting, Inc. ......................................... Dual-Lite ........................................ Manufacturer. 

Duracell ................................................................................................... Duracell .......................................... Manufacturer. 

Eastman Kodak Company ...................................................................... Eastman Kodak ............................. Manufacturer. 

Flextronics Power .................................................................................... Flextronics ..................................... Manufacturer. 

GE Healthcare ......................................................................................... GE Healthcare ............................... Manufacturer. 

Information Technology Industry Council ................................................ ITI ................................................... Industry Trade Association. 

Jerome Industries, a subsidiary of Astrodyne ......................................... Jerome Industries .......................... Manufacturer. 

Korean Agency for Technology and Standards ...................................... Republic of Korea .......................... Foreign Government. 

Logitech Inc. ............................................................................................ Logitech ......................................... Manufacturer. 

Microsoft Corporation .............................................................................. Microsoft ........................................ Manufacturer. 

Motorola Mobility, Inc. ............................................................................. Motorola Mobility ........................... Manufacturer. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ........................................ NEMA ............................................ Industry Trade Association. 

Natural Resources Defense Council ....................................................... NRDC ............................................ Energy Efficiency Advocate. 

Nintendo of America Inc. ......................................................................... Nintendo of America ...................... Manufacturer. 

Nokia Inc. ................................................................................................ Nokia .............................................. Manufacturer. 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships .............................................. NEEP ............................................. Energy Efficiency Advocate. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council.

NEEA and NPCC .......................... Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

NRDC, ACEEE, ASAP, CFA, Earthjustice, MEEA, NCLC, NEEA, 

NEEP, NPCC, Sierra Club, SEEA, SWEEP.

NRDC, et al. .................................. Energy Efficiency Advocates. 

Panasonic Corporation of North America ............................................... Panasonic ...................................... Manufacturer. 

PG&E and SDG&E .................................................................................. PG&E and SDG&E ........................ Utilities. 

Philips Electronics ................................................................................... Philips ............................................ Manufacturer. 

Plantronics ............................................................................................... Plantronics ..................................... Manufacturer. 

Power Sources Manufacturers Association ............................................ PSMA ............................................. Industry Trade Association. 

Power Tool Institute, Inc. ........................................................................ PTI ................................................. Industry Trade Association. 

Salcomp Plc ............................................................................................ Salcomp ......................................... Manufacturer. 

Schneider Electric ................................................................................... Schneider Electric .......................... Manufacturer. 

Security Industry Association .................................................................. SIA ................................................. Industry Trade Association. 

Telecommunications Industry Association .............................................. TIA ................................................. Industry Trade Association. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7859 

TABLE II–3—LIST OF COMMENTERS—Continued 

Organization Abbreviation Organization type 

Wahl Clipper Corporation ........................................................................ Wahl Clipper .................................. Manufacturer. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Compliance Date 

The compliance date is the date when 

a new standard becomes operative, i.e., 

the date by which EPS manufacturers 

must manufacture products that comply 

with the standard. EISA 2007 directed 

DOE to complete a rulemaking to amend 

the Class A EPS standards by July 1, 

2011, with compliance required by July 

1, 2013, i.e., giving manufacturers a twoyear lead time to satisfy those standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(i)) There are no 

similar requirements for non-Class A 

EPSs. DOE used a compliance date of 

2013 in the analysis it prepared for its 

March 2012 NOPR. As a result, some 

interested parties assumed in their 

comments to DOE that the compliance 

date would be July 1, 2013. 

Many parties submitted comments on 

the duration of the compliance period 

for EPS standards. Nokia and 

Plantronics requested 18 to 24 months; 

AHAM, CEA, Eastman Kodak, 

Flextronics, ITI, Microsoft, and Salcomp 

requested two years; Panasonic 

requested a minimum of two years and 

preferably three years; Nintendo of 

America requested four years; and 

Motorola Mobility requested at least five 

years. These commenters cited the need 

to make engineering design changes, 

conduct reliability evaluations, and 

obtain regulatory approvals for safety, 

EMC, and other global standards. 

(Nokia, No. 132 at p. 2; Plantronics, No. 

156 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 124 at p. 5; 

CEA, No. 106 at p. 6; Eastman Kodak, 

No. 125 at p. 1; Flextronics, No. 145 at 

p. 1; ITI, No. 131 at p. 6; Microsoft, No. 

110 at p. 3; Salcomp, No. 73 at p. 2; 

Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 5; Nintendo of 

America, No. 135 at p. 1; Motorola 

Mobility, No. 121 at p. 2) NEMA also 

cautioned that the broad scope and 

severe limits in the proposed rule would 

force the withdrawal of systems from 

the marketplace until testing is 

concluded and threaten the availability 

of certain consumer products if 

insufficient lead time is provided. 

(NEMA, No. 134 at p. 2) CEA and 

Panasonic later submitted supplemental 

comments in response to DOE’s March 

2013 Request for Information requesting 

that DOE require compliance in 2017, to 

harmonize with the standards the 

European Union has proposed adopting. 

(CEA, No. 208 at p. 4; Panasonic, No. 

210 at p. 2) 

Consistent with the two-year lead 

time provided in EPCA, and in light of 

the passing of the statutorily-prescribed 

2013 effective date, DOE will provide 

manufacturers with a lead-time of the 

same duration as prescribed by statute 

to comply with the new and amended 

standards set forth in today’s final rule. 

EISA 2007 directed DOE to publish a 

final rule for EPSs by July 1, 2011 and 

further stipulated that any amended 

standards would apply to products 

manufactured on or after July 1, 2013, 

two years later. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) In 

DOE’s view, Congress created this twoyear interval to ensure that 

manufacturers would have sufficient 

time to meet any new and amended 

standards that DOE may set for EPSs. In 

effect, DOE is preserving the original 

compliance period length contained in 

EISA 2007 and ensuring that 

manufacturers will have sufficient time 

to transition to the new and amended 

standards. 

B. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

1. General 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

may divide covered products into 

product classes by the type of energy 

used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that would 

justify a different standard. In making a 

determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q) (outlining the criteria by 

which DOE may set different standards 

for a product). EPS product classes are 

discussed in section IV.A.2. 

An ‘‘external power supply’’ is an 

external power supply circuit that is 

used to convert household electric 

current into DC current or lower-voltage 

AC current to operate a consumer 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) EPCA, 

as amended by EISA 2007, also 

prescribes the criteria for a subcategory 

of EPSs—those classified as Class A 

EPSs (or in context, ‘‘Class A’’). Under 

42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i), a Class A EPS 

is a device that: 

1. Is designed to convert line voltage 

AC input into lower voltage AC or DC 

output; 

2. is able to convert to only one AC 

or DC output voltage at a time; 

3. is sold with, or intended to be used 

with, a separate end-use product that 

constitutes the primary load; 

4. is contained in a separate physical 

enclosure from the end-use product; 

5. is connected to the end-use product 

via a removable or hard-wired male/

female electrical connection, cable, 

cord, or other wiring; and 

6. has nameplate output power that is 

less than or equal to 250 watts. 

The Class A definition excludes any 

device that either (a) requires Federal 

Food and Drug Administration listing 

and approval as a medical device in 

accordance with section 513 of the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(21 U.S.C. 360(c)) or (b) powers the 

charger of a detachable battery pack or 

charges the battery of a product that is 

fully or primarily motor operated. See 

42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii). 

Based on DOE’s examination of 

product information, all EPSs appear to 

share four of the six criteria under the 

Class A definition in that all are: 

• Designed to convert line voltage AC 

input into lower voltage AC or DC 

output; 

• 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; and 

• connected to the end-use product 

via a removable or hard-wired male/

female electrical connection, cable, 

cord, or other wiring. 

Examples of devices that fall outside 

of Class A (in context, ‘‘non-Class A’’) 

include EPSs that can convert power to 

more than one output voltage at a time 

(multiple voltage), EPSs that have 

nameplate output power exceeding 250 

watts (high-power), EPSs used to power 

medical devices, and EPSs that provide 

power to the battery chargers of 

motorized applications and detachable 

battery packs (MADB). After examining 

the potential for energy savings that 

could result from standards for nonClass A devices, DOE concluded that 

standards for these devices would be 

likely to result in significant energy 

savings and be technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 75 FR 27170 

(May 14, 2010). With today’s notice, 

DOE is amending the current standards 

for Class A EPSs and adopting new 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7860 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

14Oregon has adopted the California standards; 

Washington, Connecticut and New Jersey are 

considering doing the same. 

15http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/pdfs/cce_faq.pdf. 

standards for multiple-voltage and highpower EPSs. 

NEMA commented in response to the 

NOPR that combining battery chargers 

and EPSs into a single rulemaking 

created burden on manufacturers in 

terms of being able to process the 

standards proposed in the NOPR. 

NEMA recommended that DOE delay 

the announcement of new and amended 

standards for EPSs and begin a new 

rulemaking process dedicated solely to 

EPSs after publishing a final rule for 

battery chargers. According to NEMA, 

EISA 2007 allows DOE to opt out of 

amending standards at this time if those 

standards are not warranted and instead 

revisit the possibility of amending EPS 

standards as part of a second 

rulemaking cycle. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 

6) 

With respect to battery chargers, DOE 

issued a Request for Information (RFI) 

on March 26, 2013, in which DOE 

sought additional information. (78 FR 

18253) The RFI sought, among other 

things, information on battery chargers 

that manufacturers had certified as 

compliant with the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) standards that 

became effective on February 1, 2013. 

The notice also offered commenters the 

opportunity to raise for comment any 

other issues relevant to the proposal. 

Several efficiency advocates 

submitted comments in response to 

DOE’s RFI, requesting that DOE split the 

combined battery charger and EPS 

rulemaking into two separate 

rulemakings and issue EPS standards as 

soon as possible. (NRDC, et al., No. 209 

at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 197 at p. 9; 

California Energy Commission, No. 199 

at p. 14; NEEA and NPCC, No. 200 at p. 

2) These commenters gave three reasons 

for quickly finalizing the EPS rule: (1) 

The significant energy and economic 

savings expected to result from the EPS 

standard, (2) the need to move quickly 

to finalize standards before the 

underlying technical data become 

outdated, and (3) the statutory deadline 

of July 1, 2011 for publishing the EPS 

final rule. In response to DOE’s March 

2013 Request for Information, Dual-Lite, 

a division of Hubbell Lighting, 

commented that it ‘‘challenges the DOE 

to adopt a bias towards action in 

rulemakings, whereby initial rules are 

performed with a cant towards getting a 

more modest rule out the door in a 

timely manner, versus chasing every 

0.01 watt of potential savings . . . and 

delaying actual energy savings by 

months or years.’’ (Dual-Lite, No. 189 at 

p. 3) 

As explained above, this rulemaking 

initially addressed both battery chargers 

and EPSs. After proposing standards for 

both product types in March 2012, and 

giving careful consideration to the 

complexity of the issues related to the 

setting of standards for battery chargers, 

DOE has decided to adopt energy 

conservation standards for EPSs while 

weighing for further consideration the 

promulgation of energy conservation 

standards for battery chargers at a later 

date. The battery charger rulemaking 

has been complicated by a number of 

factors, including the setting of 

standards by the CEC, which other 

states have chosen to follow.14 Because 

the California standards have already 

become effective, manufacturers are 

already required to meet that battery 

charger standard. DOE has previously 

indicated that the facts before it did not 

indicate that it would be likely 

manufacturers would continue to create 

separate products for California and the 

rest of the country. See 77 FR at 18502. 

The likelihood of this split-approach 

occurring is even less likely, given that 

other states have adopted the California 

standards. As a result, DOE believes that 

manufacturers are already making 

efforts to meet the levels set by 

California. To avoid unnecessary 

disruptions to the market, provide some 

level of consistency and stability to 

affected entities, and to further evaluate 

the impacts associated with the 

California-based standards, DOE is 

deferring the setting of battery charger 

standards at this time. Consequently, 

today’s notice focuses solely on the 

standards that are being adopted today 

for EPSs, along with the detailed 

product classes that will apply. For 

further detail, see the March 2013 

Request for Information. 

2. Definition of Consumer Product 

As noted above, the term ‘‘external 

power supply’’ refers to an external 

power supply circuit that is used to 

convert household electric current into 

DC current or lower-voltage AC current 

to operate a consumer product. 

DOE received comments from a 

number of stakeholders seeking 

clarification on the definition of a 

consumer product. Schneider Electric 

commented that the definition of 

consumer product is ‘‘virtually 

unbounded’’ and ‘‘provides no 

definitive methods to distinguish 

commercial or industrial products from 

consumer products.’’ (Schneider 

Electric, No. 119 at p. 2) ITI commented 

that a more narrow definition of a 

consumer product is needed to 

determine which state regulations are 

preempted by federal standards. (ITI, 

No. 131 at p. 2) NEMA commented that 

the FAQ on the DOE Web site is 

insufficient to resolve its members’ 

questions. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 2) 

NEMA further sought clarification on 

whether EPSs that power building 

system components are within the scope 

of this rulemaking. According to NEMA, 

such EPSs typically are permanently 

installed in electrical rooms near the 

electrical entrance to the building and 

power such things as communication 

links, central processors for building or 

lighting management systems, and 

motorized shades. (NEMA, No. 134 at 

pp. 6–7) These stakeholders suggested 

ways that DOE could clarify the 

definition of a consumer product: 

• Adopt the ENERGY STAR battery 

charger definition. 

• Limit the scope to products 

marketed as compliant with the FCC’s 

Class B emissions limits. 

• Define consumer products as 

‘‘pluggable Type A Equipment (as 

defined by IEC 60950–1), with an input 

rating of less than or equal to 16A.’’ 

Lutron Electronics commented that it 

does not believe that the EPSs that 

power components of the lighting 

control systems and window shading 

systems it manufactures are within the 

scope of the EPS rulemaking because 

EPSs that meet the special requirements 

of such applications and meet the 

proposed standards are not 

commercially available. (Lutron 

Electronics, No. 141 at p. 2) DOE also 

received comments from NEMA and 

Philips regarding how DOE would treat 

illuminated exit signs and egress 

lighting. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 6; 

Philips, No. 128 at p. 2) 

EPCA defines a consumer product as 

any article of a type that consumes or 

is designed to consume energy and 

which, to any significant extent, is 

distributed in commerce for personal 

use or consumption by individuals. See 

42 U.S.C. 6291(1). Manufacturers are 

advised to use this definition (in 

conjunction with the EPS definition) to 

determine whether a given device shall 

be subject to EPS standards. Additional 

guidance is contained in the FAQ 

document that NEMA referred to, which 

can be downloaded from DOE’s Web 

site.15

Consistent with the statutory language 

and guidance noted above, DOE notes 

that Congress treated EPSs, along with 

illuminated exit signs, as consumer 

products. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u) and (w) 

(provisions related to requirements for 

EPSs and illuminated exit signs, both of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7861 

which are located in Part A of EPCA, 

which addresses residential consumer 

products). In light of this treatment, by 

statute, EPSs are considered consumer 

products under EPCA. Accordingly, 

DOE is treating these products in a 

manner consistent with the framework 

established by Congress. 

3. Power Supplies for Solid State 

Lighting 

NEMA and Philips commented that 

power supplies for solid state lighting 

(SSL) should not be included in the 

scope of this rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 

134 at pp. 3–7; Philips, No. 128 at p. 2) 

They offered the following arguments 

against the inclusion of SSL power 

supplies: 

• SSL is often used in commercial 

applications, and therefore should not 

be considered a consumer product; 

• SSL power supplies are considered 

a part of the system as a whole and 

typically tested as such; 

• SSL power supplies perform other 

functions in addition to power 

conversion, such as dimming; 

• SSL is an emerging technology and 

increasing efficiency could lead to costs 

that are prohibitive to most consumers; 

and 

• Regulating components of SSL 

could contradict DOE’s other efforts, 

which include promoting the adoption 

of SSL. 

DOE notes that Congress prescribed 

the criteria for an EPS to meet in order 

to be considered a covered product. A 

device meeting those criteria is an EPS 

under the statute and subject to the 

applicable EPS standards. DOE has no 

authority to alter these statutorilyprescribed criteria. 

Further, all Class A EPSs are subject 

to the current Class A EPS standards, 

and those that are direct operation EPSs 

will be subject to the amended EPS 

standards being adopted today. The fact 

that a given type of product, such as 

SSL products, is often used in 

commercial applications does not mean 

that it is not a consumer product, as 

explained above. DOE recognizes that 

many EPSs are considered an integral 

part of the consumer products they 

power and may be tested as such; 

however, this does not obviate the need 

to ensure that the EPS also meets 

applicable EPS standards. DOE has 

determined that there are no technical 

differences between the EPSs that power 

certain SSL (including LED) products 

and those that are used with other enduse applications. And as DOE indicated 

in its proposal, although it did not 

initially include these devices as part of 

its NOPR analysis, DOE indicated that it 

may consider revising this aspect of its 

analysis. 77 FR at 18503. Therefore, 

DOE believes that subjecting SSL EPSs 

to EPS standards will not adversely 

impact SSL consumers, since these 

devices should be able to satisfy the 

standards. DOE notes that following this 

approach is also consistent with DOE’s 

other efforts, including those to promote 

the broader adoption of SSL 

technologies. 

4. Medical Devices 

As explained above, EPSs for medical 

devices are not subject to the current 

standards created by Congress in 

December 2007. In its May 2010 

determination, DOE initially determined 

that standards for EPSs used to power 

medical devices were warranted 

because they would result in significant 

energy savings while being 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. As a result, in 

the March 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed 

standards for these devices. 

DOE subsequently received comments 

from GE Healthcare and Jerome 

Industries, which manufactures power 

supplies for medical devices. These 

commenters gave several reasons not to 

apply standards to these products. The 

commenters noted that the design, 

manufacture, maintenance, and postmarket monitoring of medical devices is 

highly regulated by the U.S. FDA, and 

EPS standards would only add to this 

already quite substantial regulatory 

burden. They also commented that there 

are a large number of individual 

medical device models, each of which 

must be tested along with its component 

EPS to ensure compliance with 

applicable standards; redesign of the 

EPS to meet DOE standards would 

require that all of these models be 

retested and reapproved, at a significant 

per-unit cost, especially for those 

devices that are produced in limited 

quantities. Jerome Industries also 

expressed concern that the proposed 

EPS standards are inconsistent with the 

reliability and safety requirements 

incumbent on some medical devices, 

i.e., asserting that an EPS cannot be 

engineered to meet the proposed 

standards and these other requirements. 

Lastly, Jerome Industries noted that 

medical EPSs are exempt from EPS 

standards in other jurisdictions, 

including Europe, Australia, New 

Zealand, and California. (GE Healthcare, 

No. 142 at p. 2; Jerome Industries, No. 

191 at pp. 1–2) 

Given these concerns, DOE has 

reevaluated its proposal to set energy 

conservation standards for medical 

device EPSs. While DOE believes, based 

on available data, that standards for 

these devices may result in energy 

savings, DOE also wishes to avoid any 

action that could potentially impact 

reliability and safety. In the absence of 

sufficient data on this issue, and 

consistent with DOE’s obligation to 

consider such adverse impacts when 

identifying and screening design 

options for improving the efficiency of 

a product, DOE has decided to refrain 

from setting standards for medical EPSs 

at this time. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(b)(i)(VII). See also 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

(4)(a)(4) and (5)(b)(4) (collectively 

setting out DOE’s policy in evaluating 

potential energy conservation standards 

for a product). 

5. Security and Life Safety Equipment 

The Security Industry Association 

sought confirmation that ‘‘security or 

life safety alarms or surveillance 

systems’’ would continue to be 

excluded from the no-load power 

requirements that were first established 

in EISA 2007. (SIA, No. 115 at pp. 1– 

2) See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E). This 

exclusion applies only to the no-load 

mode standard established in EISA 2007 

for Class A EPSs. Consistent with this 

temporary exemption, DOE is not 

requiring these devices to meet a noload mode requirement. Therefore, life 

safety and security system EPSs will, 

until the statutorily-prescribed sunset 

date of July 1, 2017, not be required to 

meet a no-load standard. At the 

appropriate time, DOE will re-examine 

this exemption and may opt to prescribe 

no-load standards for these products in 

the future. 

6. Service Parts and Spare Parts 

Several commenters requested a 

temporary exemption from the 

standards being finalized today for 

service part and spare part EPSs. (CEA, 

No. 106 at p. 7; Eastman Kodak, No. 125 

at p. 2; ITI, No. 131 at p. 9; Motorola 

Mobility, No. 121 at p. 11; Nintendo of 

America, No. 135 at p. 2) Panasonic 

commented that ‘‘a seven-year 

exemption is necessary for 

manufacturers to meet their legal and 

customer service obligations to stock 

and supply spare parts for sale, product 

servicing, and warranty claims for 

existing products.’’ (Panasonic, No. 120 

at p. 6) Panasonic later requested a 9- 

year exemption, in response to DOE’s 

March 2013 Request for Information. 

(Panasonic, No. 210 at p. 2) Brother 

International cited the added cost and 

unnecessary electronic waste that would 

result from having to stockpile a 

sufficient quantity of legacy EPSs to 

meet future needs for service or spare 

parts. (Brother International, No. 111 at 

p. 2) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7862 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

16 In the past DOE presented energy savings 

results for only the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance. In the calculation of economic 

impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost 

savings measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has 

chosen to modify its presentation of national energy 

savings to be consistent with the approach used for 

its national economic analysis. 

EPCA exempts Class A EPSs from 

meeting the statutorily prescribed 

standards if the devices are 

manufactured before July 1, 2015, and 

are made available by the manufacturer 

as service parts or spare parts for enduse consumer products that were 

manufactured prior to the end of the 

compliance period (July 1, 2008). (42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(B)) Congress created 

this limited (and temporary) exemption 

as part of a broad range of amendments 

under EISA 2007. The provision does 

not grant DOE with the authority to 

expand or extend the length of this 

exemption and Congress did not grant 

DOE with the general authority to 

exempt any already covered product 

from the requirements set by Congress. 

Accordingly, DOE cannot grant the 

relief sought by these commenters. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

Energy conservation standards 

promulgated by DOE must be 

technologically feasible. This section 

addresses the manner in which DOE 

assessed the technological feasibility of 

the new and amended standards being 

adopted today. 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the products or equipment 

that are the subject of the rulemaking. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. Section IV.B of this 

notice discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for EPSs, particularly 

the designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) 

analyzed in this rulemaking. For further 

detail, see chapter 4 of the technical 

support document (TSD), which 

accompanies this final rule and can be 

found in the docket on regulations.gov. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When proposing an amended 

standard for a type or class of covered 

product, DOE must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for EPSs using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of 

the final rule TSD.) The max-tech levels 

that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section IV.C 

of this final rule. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with new and 

amended standards (2015–2044). The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of products purchased in the 

30-year period.16 DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of new and amended 

mandatory efficiency standards, and 

considers market forces and policies 

that affect demand for more efficient 

products. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate 

energy savings from new and amended 

standards for the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. The NIA 

spreadsheet model (described in section 

IV.H of this notice) calculates energy 

savings in site energy, which is the 

energy directly consumed by products 

at the locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports national energy 

savings in terms of the savings in the 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. To calculate 

this quantity, DOE derives annual 

conversion factors from the model used 

to prepare the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO). 

DOE has also begun to estimate fullfuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 

(Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 

49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuelcycle (FFC) metric includes the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels, and thus 

presents a more complete picture of the 

impacts of energy efficiency standards. 

For this final rule, DOE did not include 

the FFC in the NIA. However, DOE 

developed a sensitivity analysis that 

estimates these additional impacts from 

production activities. DOE’s approach is 

based on calculation of an FFC 

multiplier for each of the energy types 

used by covered products. 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from 

adopting a standard for a covered 

product unless such standard would 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that 

Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy 

savings in this context to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for all of the TSLs considered in 

this rulemaking (presented in section 

V.B.3) are nontrivial, and, therefore, 

DOE considers them ‘‘significant’’ 

within the meaning of section 325 of 

EPCA. 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

EPCA provides seven factors to be 

evaluated in determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) This section discusses 

how DOE has addressed each of those 

seven factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a new 

and amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE first uses an annual 

cash-flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7863 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

industry net present value (INPV), 

which values the industry on the basis 

of expected future cash flows; cash 

flows by year; changes in revenue and 

income; and other measures of impact, 

as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes 

and reports the impacts on different 

types of manufacturers, including 

impacts on small manufacturers. Third, 

DOE considers the impact of standards 

on domestic manufacturer employment 

and manufacturing capacity, as well as 

the potential for standards to result in 

plant closures and loss of capital 

investment. Finally, DOE takes into 

account cumulative impacts of various 

DOE regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 

period (PBP) associated with new and 

amended standards. The LCC, which is 

specified separately in EPCA as one of 

the seven factors to be considered in 

determining the economic justification 

for a new and amended standard, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed 

in the following section. For consumers 

in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value of the 

economic impacts applicable to a 

particular rulemaking. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

savings for the considered efficiency 

levels are calculated relative to a base 

case that reflects projected market 

trends in the absence of new and 

amended standards. The LCC analysis 

requires a variety of inputs, such as 

product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and consumer discount rates. 

For its analysis, DOE assumes that 

consumers will purchase the considered 

products in the first year of compliance 

with new and amended standards. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in specific inputs, such as 

product lifetime and discount rate, DOE 

uses a distribution of values, with 

probabilities attached to each value. 

DOE identifies the percentage of 

consumers estimated to receive LCC 

savings or experience an LCC increase, 

in addition to the average LCC savings 

associated with a particular standard 

level. DOE also evaluates the LCC 

impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a national standard. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) 

As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses 

the NIA spreadsheet to project national 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE evaluates standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) DOE received no 

comments that EPS standards would 

increase their size and reduce their 

convenience nor have any other 

significant adverse impacts on 

consumer utility. Thus, DOE believes 

that the standards adopted in today’s 

final rule will not reduce the utility or 

performance of the products under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from the imposition of a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) It also directs 

the Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE 

transmitted a copy of its proposed rule 

to the Attorney General with a request 

that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOJ did not file any comments or 

determination with DOE on the 

proposed rule. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

The energy savings from new and 

amended standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

The new and amended standards also 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production. DOE reports the emissions 

impacts from today’s standards and 

from each TSL it considered in section 

V.B.6 of this notice. DOE also reports 

estimates of the economic value of 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effect potential new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

would have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in sections IV.F.15 and 

V.B.1.c of this final rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

For the market and technology 

assessment, DOE develops information 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7864 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

17By statute, Class A EPSs be marked with a 

Roman numeral IV. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(C). 

Since the enactment of that requirement, EPA 

adopted the Roman numeral V mark for products 

that meet the ENERGY STAR criteria (version 2.0). 

These Roman numerals correspond to higher levels 

of efficiency—i.e. V denotes a higher level of 

efficiency than IV. 

18U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 

26, 2010, Accessed at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/ 

partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/

eps_eup_sunset_stakeholder_proposal.pdf?6ec1- 

54bb 

that provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, and market 

characteristics. This activity includes 

both quantitative and qualitative 

assessments, based primarily on 

publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include product classes and 

manufacturers; quantities and types of 

products sold and offered for sale; retail 

market trends; regulatory and nonregulatory programs; and technologies 

or design options that could improve 

the energy efficiency of the products 

under examination. See chapter 3 of the 

TSD for further detail. 

1. Market Assessment 

To characterize the market for EPSs, 

DOE gathered information on the 

products that use them. DOE refers to 

these products as end-use consumer 

products or EPS ‘‘applications.’’ This 

method was chosen for two reasons. 

First, EPSs are nearly always bundled 

with or otherwise intended to be used 

with a given application; therefore, the 

demand for applications drives the 

demand for EPSs. Second, because most 

EPSs are not stand-alone products, their 

shipments, lifetimes, usage profiles, and 

power requirements are all determined 

by the associated application. 

DOE analyzed the products offered by 

online and brick-and-mortar retail 

outlets to determine which applications 

use EPSs and which EPS technologies 

are most prevalent. The list of 

applications analyzed and a full 

explanation of the market assessment 

methodology can be found in chapter 3 

of the TSD. 

While DOE identified the majority of 

EPS applications, some may not have 

been included in the NOPR analysis. 

This is due in part because the EPS 

market is dynamic and constantly 

evolving. As a result some applications 

that use EPSs were not found because 

they either made up an insignificant 

market share or were introduced to the 

market after the NOPR analysis was 

conducted. The EPSs for any other 

applications not explicitly analyzed in 

the market assessment will still be 

subject to the standards announced in 

today’s notice as long as they meet the 

definition of a covered product outlined 

in the previous section. That is, DOE’s 

omission of any particular EPS 

application from its analysis is not by 

itself an indication that the EPSs that 

power that application are not subject to 

EPS standards. 

DOE relied on published market 

research to estimate base-year 

shipments for all applications. DOE 

estimated that in 2009 a total of 345 

million EPSs were shipped for final sale 

in the United States. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

its assumptions for total base year 

(2009) EPS shipments, but did receive 

comments on its efficiency 

distributions. ARRIS Group commented 

that it is nearly impossible to purchase 

EPSs at level IV (the current federal 

standard level) because nearly all 

products comply with the ENERGY 

STAR standard (level V); ARRIS Group, 

however, provided no data in support of 

this claim.17 (ARRIS Group, No. 105 at 

p. 1) To determine the distribution of 

shipments at different efficiency levels, 

DOE relied on EPS testing conducted as 

part of the Engineering Analysis. Of the 

products DOE tested, 61% were below 

level V. DOE assumed that half of the 

EPSs below level V would improve in 

efficiency up to level V by the beginning 

of the analysis period in 2015, leaving 

30% at level IV and the remaining 70% 

at level V or higher. When the ENERGY 

STAR program for EPSs ended in 2010, 

EPA estimated that over 50% of the 

market had reached level V efficiency or 

higher.18 DOE appreciates ARRIS 

Group’s input on this subject, but has 

maintained its estimate from the NOPR 

because it is in line with the available 

data. 

2. Product Classes 

When necessary, DOE divides covered 

products into classes by the type of 

energy used, the capacity of the product, 

and any other performance-related 

feature that justifies different standard 

levels, such as features affecting 

consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

DOE then conducts its analysis and 

considers establishing or amending 

standards to provide separate standard 

levels for each product class. 

a. Proposed EPS Product Classes 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed dividing 

EPSs into those that can directly operate 

an end-use consumer product and those 

that cannot, termed ‘‘direct operation 

EPSs’’ and ‘‘indirect operation EPSs,’’ 

respectively. DOE proposed standards 

only for direct operation EPSs. 

There exist both Class A and nonClass A indirect operation EPSs. DOE 

believes that these two groups of 

devices are technically equivalent, i.e., 

there is no difference in performancerelated features between the two groups 

that would justify different standard 

levels for the two groups. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) Because of this technical 

equivalency, DOE grouped these EPSs 

into one product class for analysis, 

product class N. 

DOE proposed to divide direct 

operation EPSs into six product classes. 

Two of these six product classes were 

treated as non-Class A EPSs: Product 

class X for multiple-voltage EPSs 

(multiple simultaneous output currents) 

and product class H for high-output 

power EPSs (nameplate output power > 

250 Watts). All other direct operation 

EPSs were divided among the remaining 

four product classes (B, C, D, and E) and 

are largely composed of Class A EPSs. 

These classes, however, also contain 

some non-Class A EPSs, specifically 

direct operation EPSs for battery 

charged motorized applications. 

Medical EPSs were previously included, 

but have since been removed, as 

explained in section IV.A.1 above. 

While these devices are functionally the 

same as Class A devices, they were 

excluded from the Class A definition 

through Congressional action. See 42 

U.S.C. 6291(36). 

The primary criteria for determining 

which of these four product classes a 

given EPS falls into are the type of 

output current (AC or DC) and the 

nameplate output voltage (low-voltage 

or basic-voltage). These are the same 

parameters used by the former ENERGY 

STAR program, which DOE used to 

develop a framework for its EPS 

analysis. DOE proposed adopting the 

ENERGY STAR definitions for lowvoltage and standard voltage EPSs with 

minor variations. According to these 

definitions, if a device has a nameplate 

output voltage of less than 6 volts and 

its nameplate output current is greater 

than or equal to 550 milliamps, DOE 

considers that device a low-voltage EPS. 

A product that does not meet the criteria 

for being a low-voltage EPS is classified 

as a standard-voltage EPS. DOE 

proposed to use the term ‘‘basic voltage’’ 

in place of ‘‘standard voltage.’’ 

DOE also proposed definitions for 

AC–DC and AC–AC EPSs. If an EPS 

converts household electrical current 

into DC output, DOE classifies that 

product as an AC–DC EPS. Conversely, 

a device that converts household 

electrical current into a lower voltage 

AC output is an AC–AC EPS. Using 

these parameters, DOE was able to 

outline the specific requirements for its 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7865 

product classes included in the EPS 

rulemaking. 

The next two subsections summarize 

comments DOE received on the 

proposed product classes and explain 

how DOE has addressed these 

comments. The subsection that follows 

contains a list of the product classes and 

definitions being adopted today. 

b. Differentiating Between Direct and 

Indirect Operation EPSs 

An indirect operation EPS is an EPS 

that cannot power a consumer product 

(other than a battery charger) without 

the assistance of a battery. In other 

words, if an end-use product only 

functions when drawing power from a 

battery, the EPS associated with that 

product is classified as an indirect 

operation EPS. Because the EPS must 

first deliver power and charge the 

battery before the end-use product can 

function as intended, DOE considers 

this device an indirect operation EPS 

and defined a separate product class, N, 

for all such devices. Conversely, if the 

battery’s charge status does not impact 

the end-use product’s ability to operate 

as intended, and the end-use product 

can function using only power from the 

EPS, DOE considers that device a direct 

operation EPS. 

DOE’s initial approach for 

determining whether a given EPS has 

direct operation capability involved 

removing the battery from the 

application and attempting to operate 

the application using only power from 

the EPS. While this approach gave the 

most definitive EPS classifications, this 

procedure had the potential to create 

complications during testing since it 

frequently requires the removal of 

integral batteries prior to testing. The 

removal of such batteries can often 

require access to internal circuitry via 

sealed moldings capable of shattering 

and damaging the application. DOE also 

considered revising this method to 

account for removable and integral 

batteries, but believed it might create an 

overly burdensome process for 

manufacturers to follow. 

DOE then developed a new method to 

distinguish between direct and indirect 

operation EPSs that minimizes both the 

risk of damage to the application and 

the complexity associated with the 

removal of internal batteries. This 

approach requires manufacturers to 

determine whether an EPS can operate 

its end-use product once the associated 

battery has been fully discharged. Based 

on its close examination of a variety of 

products, DOE believes that direct 

operation EPSs are able to power the 

application regardless of the state of the 

battery, while indirect-operation EPSs 

need to charge the battery before the 

application can be used as intended. 

Comparing the time required for an 

application to operate once power is 

applied during fully discharged and 

fully charged battery conditions would 

provide a reliable indication of whether 

a given EPS is an indirect or direct 

operation device. Recording the time for 

the application to reach its intended 

functionality is necessary because 

certain applications, such as 

smartphones, contain firmware that can 

delay the EPS from operating the enduse product as expected. If the 

application takes significantly longer to 

operate once the battery has been fully 

discharged, DOE views this EPS as one 

that indirectly operates the end-use 

consumer product and classifies it as 

part of product class N. Using this 

methodology, one can readily determine 

whether a given device is a direct or 

indirect operation EPS. See Chapter 5 

and Appendix 3C of the TSD for further 

details. 

DOE received several comments on its 

proposed method for identifying 

indirect operation EPSs. Philips 

suggested that DOE allow manufacturers 

to submit data showing that their 

products are rarely powered directly 

from the AC mains despite being 

designed with such capability and asked 

that the EPSs used with these products 

be classified as indirect operation EPSs. 

(Philips, No. 128 at pp. 3–4) AHAM and 

Wahl Clipper requested that DOE 

explicitly define what is considered to 

be a ‘‘fully discharged’’ battery for 

determining whether a given device is a 

direct operation EPS. (AHAM, No. 124 

at p. 6: Wahl Clipper, No. 153 at p. 2) 

The method for determining whether 

a device is an indirect operation EPS 

was developed to separate EPSs into 

direct operation product classes and the 

indirect operation product class N, with 

the emphasis specifically on MADB 

products. It was developed based on the 

technical capabilities of the EPS and 

battery charging systems. Any product’s 

classification determination must be 

based on the observable technical 

characteristics of that product. The 

method evaluates whether the EPS can 

power the product when the battery is 

depleted to the point that the battery 

can no longer operate the end-use 

consumer product as it was intended to 

be used. DOE considers this point to be 

when a battery is ‘‘fully discharged.’’ 

NRDC commented that DOE’s 

proposed method for determining 

whether a given device is an indirect 

operation EPS ‘‘incorrectly captures 

products, such as mobile, smart phones 

and MP3 players, that have firmware 

delays on [detection of a] dead battery, 

but are otherwise capable of operating 

without the battery.’’ (NRDC, No. 114 at 

p. 15) NRDC proposed an alternative 

method that first checks whether the 

end-use consumer product has a 

removable battery, similar to the first 

approach considered by DOE in 

evaluating whether a particular device 

is an indirect operation EPS. If the 

device to which the EPS connects has a 

removable battery, NRDC suggested 

removing the battery, connecting the 

EPS, and attempting to use the product 

as it was intended. If it operates, NRDC 

believes it should be considered a direct 

operation EPS, but if it does not it 

should be considered an indirect 

operation EPS. If the battery in the enduse product is not capable of being 

removed, NRDC suggested using DOE’s 

proposed method but with one 

modification. Rather than use the five 

second delay period DOE proposed in 

the NOPR, NRDC suggested that the 

delay period be extended to a longer 

period of time closer to five minutes to 

‘‘give enough time for firmware 

functions to complete and avoid any 

temptation to game the system by 

introducing artificial delays.’’ (NRDC, 

No. 114 at p. 15) 

Based on the stakeholder comments, 

DOE has chosen to partially adopt 

NRDC’s proposed method for 

determining indirect operation with the 

exception that the determination delay 

remains five seconds in all cases. DOE 

closely examined the operational 

behavior of several smart phones, beard 

trimmers, and shavers in developing the 

indirect operation determination 

method it proposed in the March 2012 

NOPR. Based on its analysis, DOE 

believes that five seconds is an 

acceptable tolerance for the indirect 

operation determination method 

because there was a clear dividing point 

among the test data that reflected the 

ability of the battery to operate the enduse products based on the operating 

time. See Appendix 3C for the full test 

results from the indirect operation 

determination. During charging, 

batteries initially enter a bulk charge 

mode where a float voltage, or fastcharge voltage, is applied to the battery 

and the initial charge current is high 

compared to the average charging 

current throughout the duration of the 

charge cycle. DOE believes that this 

initial cycle could be enough to operate 

the end-use consumer product after a 

short period of time, but it does not 

change the fact that the product is still 

drawing power from the battery rather 

than drawing power directly from the 

EPS itself. No product DOE examined 

that met the indirect operation criteria 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7866 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

19 In the NOPR analysis, DOE mistakenly placed 

the EPSs for cord-cordless products in product class 

B, which contains basic-voltage EPSs. Based on 

public comments, DOE now recognizes that the 

EPSs in question are low-voltage EPSs and should 

have been placed in product class C. 

under the determination method came 

close to operating near the five-second 

buffer. Instead, the indirect operation 

EPSs took as little as three times longer 

(15 seconds) to operate after being 

discharged and much longer in several 

cases (85 seconds). DOE believes the 5- 

second buffer accurately distinguishes 

between indirect and direct operation 

EPSs. As NRDC did not provide any 

data supporting its view that a 5-minute 

delay was necessary, DOE sees no 

reason to modify its proposed method in 

the manner suggested by NRDC. 

Regarding NRDC’s contention that a 

longer delay would reduce the risk of 

gaming, DOE will continue to monitor 

the operation of these products as part 

of its periodic review of the test 

procedures required under 42 U.S.C. 

6293. Should DOE discover any 

anomalies suggesting a manufacturer is 

circumventing the applicable standards, 

DOE will make the necessary 

adjustments to prevent this from 

occurring. 

As part of today’s final rule, DOE is 

combining its proposed methods for 

determining indirect operation into a 

single method. DOE previously 

considered such a hybrid approach, but 

initially believed the testing might 

become too burdensome for 

manufacturers. In light of the comments 

submitted by interested parties, 

however, DOE believes the hybrid 

approach will reduce the complexity 

involved in examining consumer 

products that contain a removable 

battery. There may also be side benefits, 

outside of identifying whether a device 

is an indirect or direct operation EPS, 

including reducing possible ambiguity 

with the test procedure. See appendix 

3C to the TSD for the determination 

method for indirect operation EPSs. 

c. Multiple-Voltage 

A multiple-voltage EPS is defined as 

‘‘an external power supply that is 

designed to convert line voltage AC 

input into more than one simultaneous 

lower-voltage output.’’ See 10 CFR Part 

430 Subpart B Appendix Z. Direct 

operation EPSs that meet this definition 

are considered multiple-voltage EPSs 

and will be evaluated using the 

multiple-voltage EPS test procedure. 

These products must comply with the 

new standards being adopted today for 

multiple-voltage EPSs. An EPS cannot 

be in more than one product class, so 

such an EPS need not also comply with 

the standards being adopted today for 

product classes B, C, D, E, or H. 

In response to the NOPR regarding 

multiple-voltage EPSs, Cobra 

Electronics commented that an EPS 

with multiple simultaneous outputs but 

only one output voltage would be 

considered both a multiple-voltage EPS 

and a Class A EPS and, thus, in its view, 

would have to be tested according to 

DOE’s multiple-voltage and singlevoltage EPS test procedures. (Cobra 

Electronics, No. 130 at p. 3) 

Cobra correctly deduced that an EPS 

with multiple simultaneous outputs, but 

only one output voltage could be treated 

either as a multiple-voltage EPS or a 

Class A EPS. The term ‘‘class A external 

power supply’’ means a device that, 

among other things, is able to convert to 

only one AC or DC output voltage at a 

time. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i). As 

such, an EPS of this type must meet the 

current standards for Class A EPSs 

prescribed by Congress in EISA 2007. 

DOE notes, however, that the new 

standards being adopted today for 

multiple-voltage EPSs are more 

stringent than the current Class A 

standards. Therefore, any EPS that is 

tested and shown to comply with the 

new multiple-voltage EPS standards 

will be presumed to also comply with 

the Class A EPS standards prescribed by 

Congress in EISA 2007. 

d. Low-Voltage, High-Current EPSs 

PTI supported DOE’s efforts to discern 

which MADB products should be 

regulated as EPSs and which should be 

treated as part of a battery charger. 

According to PTI, the inclusion of 

product class N ‘‘fulfills one of PTI’s 

longstanding concerns that components 

of battery chargers and battery chargers 

themselves should not both be 

regulated, as this ‘double indemnity’ 

creates a situation where designs are 

over-constrained with no incremental 

consumer benefit.’’ (PTI, No. 133 at p. 

3) AHAM and Wahl Clipper, however, 

submitted identical comments taking 

issue with the classification of MADB 

direct operation EPSs and the CSLs DOE 

considered for these types of products. 

Instead, both stakeholders suggested 

DOE split product class C, where their 

products would fall, into two classes. 

The first would encompass all direct 

operation, low-voltage EPSs with a 

nameplate output voltage rating of 3–6 

volts and a current rating of 550–1000 

mA. The second class would include all 

direct operation, low-voltage EPSs with 

a nameplate output voltage rating of less 

than 3 volts and a current rating greater 

than 1000mA. Under the stakeholders’ 

alternative approach, the first group 

would need to comply with the 

standard level established in today’s 

amended EPS standards, and the second 

class would not. These suggestions were 

based on the stakeholders’ shared 

concern that the standards DOE 

proposed for product class C were too 

stringent and beyond the achievable 

efficiency for low-voltage, high-current 

EPSs. (Wahl Clipper, No. 153 at p. 2; 

AHAM, No. 124 at p. 6) Duracell also 

commented on the proposed standards 

for direct operation EPSs, expressing 

concern that EPSs that charge the 

batteries of motor-operated products 

such as shavers, epilators, hair clippers, 

and stick mixers would not be able to 

meet the proposed minimum activemode efficiency requirements. 

(Duracell, No. 109 at pp. 2–3) 

The commenters’ concern relates to 

those EPSs that are designed both to 

charge multiple low-voltage battery cells 

in parallel and to directly operate an 

end-use consumer product such as a 

shaver or beard trimmer. These are often 

called ‘‘cord-cordless’’ products. The 

ability to operate an end-use product 

directly from mains is a distinct 

consumer utility, as it enables the 

consumer to use the end-use product 

when the battery contains insufficient 

charge. However, having multiple cells 

generally means that the charging 

currents are higher and that these types 

of MADB EPSs will incur significantly 

greater resistive power losses than other 

similar direct operation EPSs, as power 

consumption grows exponentially with 

an increase in the output current. 

Recognizing this technical difference, 

DOE has introduced an additional 

criterion for classifying direct operation 

EPSs that recognizes that certain devices 

with low-voltage and high-current 

outputs have a distinct consumer utility, 

yet would have extreme difficulty 

meeting the standards being adopted 

today. Thus, DOE is subdividing 

product class C, splitting out certain 

low-voltage, high-current EPSs into a 

separate product class, product class C– 

1.19 Product classes C and C–1 together 

encompass all direct operation, AC–DC 

EPSs with nameplate output voltage less 

than 6 volts and nameplate output 

current greater than or equal to 550 

milliamps (‘‘low-voltage’’). Any product 

in this group that also has nameplate 

output voltage less than 3 volts and 

nameplate output current greater than or 

equal to 1,000 milliamps and charges 

the battery of a product that is fully or 

primarily motor operated is in product 

class C–1. All others remain in product 

class C. 

Given the differences in these lowvoltage, high-current EPSs from the 

other products falling into product class 

C, DOE believes there is merit in 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7867 

treating them as a separate product class 

and is currently gathering additional 

information about this subset of EPSs. In 

the meantime, DOE is not adopting 

standards for EPSs in product class C– 

1 today, but intends to study these 

products further and may elect to 

propose efficiency standards for them in 

a future rulemaking. DOE will issue 

appropriate notices when undertaking 

studies to evaluate this class of 

products. To the extent that any 

products may be regulated as both a 

battery charger and an EPS, DOE may 

consider the treatment of those products 

as part of its further consideration of 

these energy conservation standards. 

e. Final EPS Product Classes 

DOE is establishing eight product 

classes for EPSs for the reasons 

discussed above. The eight EPS product 

classes are listed in Table IV–1. 

TABLE IV–1—EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLY PRODUCT CLASSES

Class ID Product class 

B ........................ Direct Operation, AC–DC, Basic-Voltage. 

C ........................ Direct Operation, AC–DC, Low-Voltage (except those with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output 

current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps that charge the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated). 

C-1 ..................... Direct Operation, AC–DC, Low-Voltage with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater 

than or equal to 1,000 milliamps and charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. 

D ........................ Direct Operation, AC–AC, Basic-Voltage. 

E ........................ Direct Operation, AC–AC, Low-Voltage. 

X ........................ Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage. 

H ........................ Direct Operation, High-Power. 

N ........................ Indirect Operation. 

DOE is also adopting definitions for 

the following terms: Basic-voltage 

external power supply, direct operation 

external power supply, indirect 

operation external power supply, and 

low-voltage external power supply. 

These definitions will appear at 10 CFR 

430.2. DOE proposed, but is not 

adopting, definitions for AC–AC 

external power supply, AC–DC external 

power supply, and multiple-voltage 

external power supply because similar 

terms have already been codified. See 

definitions for single-voltage external 

AC–AC power supply, single-voltage 

external AC–DC power supply, and 

multiple-voltage external power supply 

at 10 CFR 430 Subpart B Appendix Z. 

3. Technology Assessment 

In the technology assessment, DOE 

identifies technology options that 

appear to be feasible to improve product 

efficiency. This assessment provides the 

technical background and structure on 

which DOE bases its screening and 

engineering analyses. The following 

discussion provides an overview of the 

technology assessment for EPSs. 

Chapter 3 of the TSD provides 

additional detail and descriptions of the 

basic construction and operation of 

EPSs, followed by a discussion of 

technology options to improve their 

efficiency and power consumption in 

various modes. 

a. EPS Efficiency Metrics 

DOE used its EPS test procedures as 

the basis for evaluating EPS efficiency 

over the course of the standards 

rulemaking for EPSs. These procedures, 

which are codified in appendix Z to 

subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 (‘‘Uniform 

Test Method for Measuring the Energy 

Consumption of EPSs’’), include a 

means to account for the energy 

consumption from single-voltage EPSs, 

switch-selectable EPSs, and multiplevoltage EPSs. 

On December 8, 2006, DOE codified a 

test procedure final rule for single 

output-voltage EPSs. See 71 FR 71340. 

On June 1, 2011, DOE added a test 

procedure to cover multiple outputvoltage EPSs. See 76 FR 31750. DOE’s 

test procedures yield two 

measurements: Active mode efficiency 

and no-load mode (standby mode) 

power consumption. 

Active-mode efficiency is the ratio of 

output power to input power. For 

single-voltage EPSs, the DOE test 

procedure averages the efficiency at four 

loading conditions—25, 50, 75, and 100 

percent of maximum rated output 

current—to assess the performance of an 

EPS when powering diverse loads. For 

multiple-voltage EPSs, the test 

procedure provides those four metrics 

individually, which DOE averages to 

measure the efficiency of these types of 

devices. The test procedure also 

specifies how to measure the power 

consumption of the EPS when 

disconnected from the consumer 

product, which is termed ‘‘no-load’’ 

power consumption because the EPS 

outputs zero percent of the maximum 

rated output current to the application. 

To develop the analysis and to help 

establish a framework for setting EPS 

standards, DOE considered both 

combining average active-mode 

efficiency and no-load power into a 

single metric, such as unit energy 

consumption (UEC), and maintaining 

separate metrics for each. DOE chose to 

evaluate EPSs using the two metrics 

separately. Using a single metric that 

combines active-mode efficiency and 

no-load power consumption to 

determine the standard may 

inadvertently permit the ‘‘backsliding’’ 

of the standards established by EISA 

2007. Specifically, because a combined 

metric would regulate the overall energy 

consumption of the EPS as the 

aggregation of active-mode efficiency 

and no-load power, that approach could 

permit the performance of one metric to 

drop below the EISA 2007 level if it is 

sufficiently offset by an improvement in 

the other metric. Such a result would, 

in DOE’s view, constitute a backsliding 

of the standards and would violate 

EPCA’s prohibition from setting such a 

level. DOE’s approach seeks to avoid 

this result. 

The DOE test procedure for multiplevoltage EPSs yields five values: no-load 

power consumption as well as 

efficiency at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent 

of maximum load. In the March 2012 

standards NOPR, DOE proposed 

averaging the four efficiency values to 

create an average efficiency metric for 

multiple-voltage EPSs, similar to the 

approach followed for single-voltage 

EPSs. Alternatively, DOE introduced the 

idea of averaging the efficiency 

measurements at 50 percent and 75 

percent of maximum load because the 

only known application that currently 

uses a multiple-voltage EPS, a video 

game console, operates most often 

between those loading conditions. DOE 

sought comment from interested parties 

on these two approaches. 

Microsoft commented that setting a 

standard based on arbitrary loads that 

do not represent the intended loading 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7868 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

20A linear mode or linear regulated EPS is an EPS 

that has its resistance regulated and results in a 

constant output voltage. In contrast, a switched 

mode EPS is an EPS that switches on and off to 

maintain an average value of output voltage. 

point of the end-use application is 

counterproductive because EPSs are 

designed to be most efficient under the 

loading conditions they operate in most 

frequently. Instead, Microsoft believes 

that ‘‘to optimize energy savings in real 

life, loading requirements in energy 

conservation standards should be based 

on the expected product load.’’ 

(Microsoft, No. 110 at p. 2) 

Although it is aware of only one 

currently available consumer product 

using multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE 

believes that evaluating multiple-voltage 

EPSs using an average-efficiency metric 

(based on the efficiencies at 25%, 50%, 

75%, and 100% of each output’s 

normalized maximum nameplate output 

power) would allow the standard to be 

applied to a diverse range of future 

products that may operate under 

different loading conditions. In 

addition, DOE’s test data of the only 

product that currently falls into the 

multiple-voltage product class indicate 

that there is only a fractional percentage 

difference in the average active-mode 

efficiency when comparing DOE’s 

weighting of the efficiency loading 

measurements and the alternative 

approach of averaging the efficiencies at 

50% and 75% load where the console 

is most likely to operate. Therefore, DOE 

evaluated multiple-voltage EPSs using 

no-load mode power consumption and 

an average active-mode efficiency 

metric based on the measured 

efficiencies at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 

100% of rated output power in 

developing the new energy conservation 

standards for these products. This 

loading point averaging methodology is 

consistent with the calculation of 

average active-mode efficiency for 

single-voltage external supplies as 

outlined in Appendix Z to Subpart B of 

10 CFR Part 430. 

b. EPS Technology Options 

DOE considered seven technology 

options, fully detailed in Chapter 3 of 

the TSD, which may improve the 

efficiency of EPSs: (1) Improved 

Transformers, (2) Switched-Mode Power 

Supplies, (3) Low-Power Integrated 

Circuits, (4) Schottky Diodes and 

Synchronous Rectification, (5) Low-Loss 

Transistors, (6) Resonant Switching, and 

(7) Resonant (‘‘Lossless’’) Snubbers. 

During its analysis, DOE found that 

some technology options affect both 

efficiency and no-load performance and 

that the individual contributions from 

these options cannot be separated from 

each other in a cost analysis. Given this 

finding, DOE adopted a ‘‘matched pairs’’ 

approach for defining the EPS CSLs. 

This approach used selected test units 

to characterize the relationship between 

average active-mode efficiency and noload power dissipation. In the matched 

pairs approach, EPS energy 

consumption decreases as you move 

from one CSL to the next higher CSL 

either through higher active mode 

efficiency, lower no-load mode power 

consumption, or both. If DOE allowed 

one metric to decrease in stringency 

between CSLs, then the cost-efficiency 

results might have shown cost 

reductions at higher CSLs and skewed 

the true costs associated with increasing 

the efficiency of EPSs. To avoid this 

result, DOE used an approach that 

increases the stringency of both metrics 

for each CSL considered during the 

process of amending the EISA standard 

for EPSs. 

DOE considered all technology 

options when developing CSLs for all 

four EPS representative units in product 

class B. DOE considered the same 

efficiency improvements in its analysis 

for EPSs in product classes X and H as 

it did for Class A EPSs. Where 

representative units were not explicitly 

analyzed (i.e., product classes C, D, and 

E), DOE extended its analysis from a 

directly analyzed class. As a result, all 

design options that could apply to these 

products were implicitly considered 

because the efficiency levels of the 

analyzed product class will be scaled to 

other product classes, an approach 

supported by interested parties 

throughout the rulemaking process. The 

equations were structured based on the 

relationships between product classes C, 

D, and E and representative product 

class B such that the technology options 

not implemented by the other classes 

were accounted for in the proposed 

candidate standard levels. For example, 

AC–AC EPSs (product classes C and E) 

tend to have higher no-load power 

dissipation than AC–DC EPSs because 

they do not use switched-mode 

topologies (see Chapter 3 of the TSD for 

a full technical description). Therefore, 

to account for this characteristic in these 

products, DOE used higher no-load 

power metrics when generating CSLs for 

these product classes than are found in 

the corresponding CSLs for the 

representative product class B. 

c. High-Power EPSs 

DOE examined the specific design 

options for high-power EPSs as they 

relate to ham radios, the sole consumer 

application for these EPSs. DOE found 

that high-power EPSs are unique 

because both linear and switched-mode 

versions are available as cost-effective 

options, but the linear EPSs are more 

expensive and inherently limited in 

their achievable efficiency despite 

sharing some of the same possible 

efficiency improvements as EPSs in 

other product classes.20 Interested 

parties have expressed concern that 

setting an efficiency standard higher 

than a linear EPS can achieve would 

reduce the utility of these devices 

because ham radios are sensitive to the 

electromagnetic interference (EMI) 

generated by switched-mode EPSs. In 

some cases, EMI can couple through the 

EPS to the transmitter of ham radios and 

be transmitted on top of the intended 

signal causing distortion. 

DOE sought comment on the impacts 

of excessive EMI in amateur radio 

applications using EPSs with switchedmode topologies. PTI acknowledged that 

EMI generated from switched-mode 

power supplies is more of a factor in 

radio applications, but could not 

definitively attest to any adverse 

impacts on consumer utility due to the 

changeover from linear power supplies. 

(PTI, No. 133 at p. 4) 

DOE believes there is no reduction in 

utility because EPSs used in 

telecommunication applications are 

required to meet the EMI regulations of 

the Federal Communications 

Commission (47 CFR part 15, subpart 

B), regardless of the underlying 

technology. These regulations 

specifically limit the amount of EMI for 

‘‘unintentional radiators’’, which are 

devices that are not intended to generate 

radio frequency signals but do to some 

degree due to the nature of their design. 

Many such devices limit the amount of 

EMI coupled to the end use product 

through EMI filters and proper 

component arrangement on the printed 

circuit board (PCB). As part of its 

engineering analysis, DOE constructed 

the high power cost-efficiency curves 

using two teardown units including one 

that utilized switched-mode technology 

and made use of similar EMI-limiting 

techniques. This switched-mode design 

complied with the FCC requirements 

with no reduction in utility or 

performance despite a higher efficiency 

than the baseline design DOE analyzed. 

Given the presence of switched-mode 

designs that comply with the FCC 

regulations and the existence of EMIlimiting technology, DOE does not 

believe that the new standard will 

negatively affect the consumer utility of 

high-power EPSs. 

d. Power Factor 

Power factor is a relative measure of 

transmission losses between the power 

plant and a consumer product or the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7869 

ratio of real power to the total power 

drawn by the EPS. Due to nonlinear and 

energy-storage circuit elements such as 

diodes and inductors, respectively, 

electrical products often draw currents 

that are not proportional to the line 

voltage. These currents are either 

distorted or out of phase in relation to 

the line voltage, resulting in no real 

power drawn by the EPS or transmitted 

to the load. However, although the EPS 

itself consumes no real power, these 

currents are real and cause power 

dissipation from conduction losses in 

the transmission and distribution 

wiring. For a given nameplate output 

power and efficiency, products with a 

lower power factor cause greater power 

dissipation in the wiring, an effect that 

also becomes more pronounced at 

higher input powers. DOE examined the 

issue of power factor in section 3.6 of 

the May 2009 framework document for 

the present rulemaking and noted that 

certain ENERGY STAR specifications 

limit power factor. 

DOE notes that regulating power 

factor includes substantial challenges, 

such as quantifying transmission losses 

that depend on the length of the 

transmission wires, which differ for 

each residential consumer. Further, 

DOE has not yet conclusively analyzed 

the benefits and burdens from regulating 

power factor. While DOE plans to 

continue analyzing power factor and the 

merits of its inclusion as part of a future 

rulemaking, it is DOE’s view that the 

above factors weigh in favor of not 

setting a power factor-based standard at 

this time. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which design 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in a standards 

rulemaking: 

1. Technological feasibility. DOE 

considers technologies incorporated in 

commercial products or in working 

prototypes to be technologically 

feasible. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If mass production 

and reliable installation and servicing of 

a technology in commercial products 

could be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time the standard comes into effect, 

then DOE considers that technology 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service. 

3. Adverse impacts on product utility 

or product availability. If DOE 

determines a technology would have 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to significant subgroups 

of consumers, or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not consider this 

technology further. 

4. Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If DOE determines that a 

technology will have significant adverse 

impacts on health or safety, it will not 

consider this technology further. See 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

(4)(a)(4) and (5)(b). 

For EPSs, DOE did not screen out any 

technology options after considering the 

four criteria. For additional details, see 

chapter 4 of the TSD. 

Brother International commented that 

the design options DOE considered for 

lowering no-load power consumption 

could adversely impact the health and 

safety of consumers as manufacturers 

might eliminate existing safety controls 

to comply with the amended standards. 

Specifically, citing to one example, 

Brother pointed to the lack of a device 

to discharge residual charge from one of 

their candidate EPS designs, which they 

believed was removed in order to 

comply with the proposed no-load 

requirements from the NOPR. Brother 

believes this omission could impact 

safety to consumers and that DOE 

should not lower the no-load 

requirements for EPSs below the current 

federal maximum of 0.5 watts. However, 

they did not elaborate on the component 

involved or state that removing said 

component was the only design option 

in order to meet the proposed standard. 

(Brother International, No. 111 at p. 3) 

DOE conducts a screening analysis on 

all the technology options it identifies 

during the technology assessment 

portion of the rulemaking by applying a 

strict set of statutory criteria. At no 

point during interviews with 

manufacturers or DOE’s independent 

testing, was there concern expressed 

over the no-load levels DOE was 

analyzing. The no-load power metric for 

each CSL DOE considered was 

supported by data compiled from 

already commercially available units, 

which posed no such health or safety 

risk to consumers. While Brother 

International did not expand on its 

concerns, DOE is aware of certain 

components in general EPS design, such 

as X capacitors and bleeder resistors. 

EPS designers typically use X capacitors 

on the input filter stages to protect the 

EPS against line voltage spikes and 

bleeder resistors to bleed off the residual 

charge from the devices when the EPS 

is disconnected. It is common design to 

practice to include these components; 

however, should the resistor be omitted, 

the capacitors will still discharge within 

seconds of the power being removed. In 

any case, based on its examination of 

this issue, DOE does not believe these 

design practices present any shock 

hazard to consumers provided they do 

not attempt to physically tear down or 

otherwise destroy the EPS under live 

power conditions. As a result, DOE did 

not screen out any additional 

technology options based on adverse 

impacts to health and safety associated 

with decreasing the no-load power 

consumption through the amended EPS 

standards. 

Additionally, DOE notes that it has 

received no comments from interested 

parties regarding patented technologies 

and proprietary designs that would 

inhibit manufacturers from achieving 

the energy conservation standards 

adopted in today’s rule. DOE believes 

that those standards will not mandate 

the use of any such technologies. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

In the engineering analysis (detailed 

in chapter 5 of the TSD), DOE describes 

the relationship between the 

manufacturer selling price (MSP) and 

increases in EPS efficiency. The 

efficiency values range from that of an 

inefficient EPS sold today (the baseline) 

to the maximum technologically feasible 

efficiency level. For each efficiency 

level examined, DOE determines the 

MSP; this relationship is referred to as 

a cost-efficiency curve. 

DOE structured its engineering 

analysis around two methodologies: (1) 

Test and teardowns, which involves 

testing products for efficiency and 

determining cost from a detailed bill of 

materials derived from tear-downs and 

(2) the efficiency-level approach, where 

the cost of achieving increases in energy 

efficiency at discrete levels of efficiency 

are estimated using information 

gathered in manufacturer interviews 

supplemented by, and verified through, 

technology reviews and subject matter 

experts (SMEs). When analyzing the 

cost of each CSL—whether based on 

existing or theoretical designs—DOE 

distinguishes between the cost of the 

EPS and the cost of the associated enduse product. 

1. Representative Product Classes and 

Representative Units 

DOE selected representative product 

class B (AC to DC conversion, basicvoltage EPSs), which contains most 

Class A EPSs and some MADB EPSs that 

can directly power an application, as 

the focus of its engineering analysis 

because it constituted the majority of 

shipments and national energy 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7870 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

21http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/archive/

2004rulemaking/documents/case_studies/CASE_

Power_Supplies.pdf. 

22 In confirming this information, DOE obtained 

technical assistance from two subject matter 

experts—These two experts were selected after 

having been found through the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 

Together, they have over 30-years of combined 

experience with power supply design. The experts 

relied on their experience to evaluate the validity 

of both the design and the general cost of the maxtech efficiency levels provided by manufacturers. 

consumption related to EPSs. Within 

product class B, DOE analyzed four 

representative units with output powers 

of 2.5 watts, 18 watts, 60 watts, and 120 

watts because the associated consumer 

applications for these, and similar, EPSs 

constitute a significant portion of 

shipments and energy consumption. 

Based on DOE’s analysis of product 

class B, DOE was able to scale the 

results for product classes C, D, and E. 

EPSs in each have inherent technical 

limitations that prevent them from 

meeting the same efficiency and no-load 

levels as EPSs in product class B. The 

lower-voltage product classes C and E 

typically have higher loss ratios than 

EPSs in product class B due to their 

lower nameplate output voltages and 

higher nameplate output currents. 

Therefore, it was necessary for DOE to 

scale down the efficiency levels 

established in product class B to more 

technically achievable levels for product 

classes C and E. 

Similarly, EPSs in product class D do 

not possess control circuitry to lower 

the no-load power consumption. DOE 

found that including such circuitry 

would increase the no-load 

consumption while increasing the 

overall cost of EPSs in product class D. 

DOE subsequently scaled the no-load 

power consumption results established 

from the analysis of product class B to 

adjust for this limitation of EPSs in 

product class D. Despite the 

comparatively small percentage of EPSs 

in product classes C, D, and E compared 

to those in product class B, DOE has 

taken steps to ensure that the standards 

for each class are technically feasible for 

EPSs in each product class. More detail 

on DOE’s scaling methodology can be 

found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

Some interested parties supported 

DOE’s approach in creating and 

analyzing representative product classes 

and representative units during the 

rulemaking process. The California 

IOUs agreed with using product class B 

as the representative product class and 

scaling to other product classes because 

of their inherent similarities. (CA IOUs, 

No. 138 at p. 13) Although no specific 

data were provided, the California IOUs 

also commented in support of the four 

representative units within the product 

class, noting that their own research 21

into the power supply market 

corroborates DOE’s selections. (CA 

IOUs, No. 138 at p. 13) ARRIS Group, 

however, claimed that ‘‘by analyzing 

EPSs at the 18W representative unit, 

DOE overstates annual power cost 

savings’’ and suggested that averaging 

energy savings across output powers is 

more accurate. (ARRIS Group, No. 105 

at p. 2) Both of the methodologies DOE 

presented during the NOPR public 

meeting were identical to those 

originally drafted as part of the 

preliminary analysis. 

The representative units DOE selected 

align with a wide range of EPS output 

powers for consumer applications. The 

purpose was to select units that capture 

the most common output voltages and 

output powers available on the market. 

In most cases, as output power 

increases, nameplate output voltage also 

increases, but DOE found that most EPS 

designs tended to cluster around certain 

common output voltage and output 

power levels. DOE used this trend in 

EPS design to categorize its four 

representative units. DOE was also able 

to test several EPS units that exactly met 

the representative units’ specifications 

and scaled units with small variations 

based on output power, output voltage, 

cord length, and/or cost as described in 

chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. While 

the costs are analyzed on an individual 

unit basis, the standard levels 

considered by DOE, and ultimately the 

energy savings, are examined across the 

entire range of EPSs. National energy 

savings (NES) and consumer NPV are 

calculated for an entire product class, 

not an individual representative unit. 

To date, stakeholders have supported 

this approach and the overall 

engineering analysis methodology. 

Therefore, DOE elected to maintain its 

selections for the EPS representative 

units and its methodology for estimating 

the cost savings from the standards 

adopted today. 

2. EPS Candidate Standard Levels 

(CSLs) 

DOE applied the same methodology to 

establish CSLs in today’s final rule as it 

did for its proposal and preliminary 

analysis. DOE created CSLs as pairs of 

EPS efficiency metrics for each 

representative unit with increasingly 

stringent standards having highernumbered CSLs. The CSLs were 

generally based on (1) voluntary (e.g. 

ENERGY STAR) specifications or 

mandatory (i.e., those established by 

EISA 2007) standards that either require 

or encourage manufacturers to develop 

products at particular efficiency levels; 

(2) the most efficient products available 

in the market; and (3) the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max tech’’) 

level. These CSLs are summarized for 

each representative unit in Table IV–2. 

In section IV.C.5, DOE discusses how it 

developed equations to apply the CSLs 

from the representative units to all 

EPSs. 

TABLE IV–2—SUMMARY OF EPS CSLS FOR PRODUCT CLASSES B, C, D, AND E 

CSL Reference Basis 

0 ................... EISA 2007 ................................................. EISA 2007 equations for efficiency and no-load power. 

1 ................... ENERGY STAR 2.0 .................................. ENERGY STAR 2.0 equations for efficiency and no-load power. 

2 ................... Intermediate .............................................. Interpolation between test data points. 

3 ................... Best-in-Market ........................................... Most efficient test data points. 

4 ................... Max Tech .................................................. Maximum technologically feasible efficiency. 

DOE conducted several rounds of 

interviews with manufacturers who 

produce EPSs, integrated circuits for 

EPSs, and applications using EPSs. All 

of the manufacturers interviewed 

identified ways that EPSs could be 

modified to achieve efficiencies higher 

than those available with current 

products. These manufacturers also 

described the costs of achieving those 

efficiency improvements, which DOE 

examines in detail in chapter 5 of the 

TSD. DOE independently verified the 

accuracy of the information described 

by manufacturers.22 Verifying this 

information required examining and 

testing products at the best-in-market 

efficiency level and determining what 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7871 

design options could still be added to 

improve their efficiency. By comparing 

the improved best-in-market designs 

(using predicted performance and cost) 

to the estimates provided by 

manufacturers, DOE was able to assess 

the reasonableness of the max-tech 

levels developed. 

DOE created the max-tech candidate 

standard level (CSL 4) equations for 

average efficiency and no-load power 

using curve-fits (i.e., creating a 

continuous mathematical expression to 

represent the trend of the data as 

accurately as possible) of the aggregated 

manufacturer data (see chapter 5 of the 

TSD for details on curve fits). DOE 

created the equations for no-load power 

based on a curve fit of the no-load 

power among the four representative 

units. For both the average efficiency 

and no-load power CSL equations, DOE 

used equations similar to those for CSL 

1, involving linear and logarithmic 

terms in the nameplate output power. 

DOE chose the divisions at 1 watt and 

49 watts in the CSL 4 equations to 

ensure consistency with the nameplate 

output power divisions between the 

equations for CSL 1. 

DOE evaluated EPSs using the two 

EPS efficiency metrics, no-load power 

consumption and active-mode average 

efficiency, which it grouped into 

‘‘matched pairs.’’ Under the matched 

pairs approach, each CSL would 

increase in stringency in at least one of 

the metrics and no metric would ever be 

lowered in moving to a higher CSL. 

DOE’s goal in using this approach was 

to ensure that when it associated costs 

with the CSLs, that the costs would 

reflect the complete costs of increased 

efficiency. If DOE followed an approach 

that permitted a decrease in stringency 

for a given metric, the result might be 

a projected reduction in EPS cost, which 

would mask the full cost of increasing 

EPS efficiency. 

Interested parties supported DOE’s 

matched pairs approach for EPS CSLs. 

Stakeholders, such as the California 

Energy Commission, commented that 

DOE’s approach focused directly on 

what is measured rather than 

introducing usage assumptions to 

weight the values of standby mode and 

active-mode power consumption. The 

California Energy Commission believes 

that regulating active-mode efficiency 

and no-load power consumption rather 

than a combined unit energy 

consumption (UEC) metric is the most 

appropriate course of action for DOE 

(California Energy Commission, No. 117 

at p. 17). While supportive of DOE’s 

approach, interested parties, including 

the California IOUs, also cautioned DOE 

to avoid setting levels for no-load power 

that were too stringent when compared 

to active-mode efficiency 

improvements. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 

13) 

DOE received additional comments 

regarding its EPS CSLs. NRDC and 

ASAP both urged DOE to ‘‘evaluate an 

intermediate level for EPS product class 

B between CSL 3 and CSL 4’’, suggesting 

that there may be a more stringent 

standard that is cost-effective between 

DOE’s estimates for the best-in-market 

and maximum technologically feasible 

CSLs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 12; ASAP, 

et al., No. 136 at p. 10) 

As discussed above, DOE’s CSL 

equations are a function of nameplate 

output power and are based on existing 

standards, incentive programs, the most 

efficient tested units on the market, 

intermediate levels between those 

points, and a maximum technologically 

feasible or ‘‘max-tech’’ level. No-load 

requirements were carefully considered 

consistent in light of the submitted 

comments. The difference in 

performance between the CSLs noted by 

NRDC corresponds to the difference 

between the best-in-market level, which 

is supported by test data, and the ‘‘maxtech’’ level, which is theoretical and 

based on estimates from manufacturers 

and industry experts. DOE’s 

comprehensive engineering analysis 

selected specific CSLs based on real 

world data and discussions with 

manufacturers. NRDC did not provide 

any additional data to support its 

recommendation that DOE examine 

more stringent standard. Instead, it 

asserted that DOE did not find more 

efficient EPSs on the market above the 

CSL proposal because market demand is 

shaped primarily by the efficiency 

marking protocol and there is currently 

little incentive for the market to demand 

efficiencies higher than Level V. (NRDC, 

No. 114 at p. 12) 

In DOE’s view, adopting NRDC’s 

approach would create a standard based 

entirely on theoretical design 

improvements to the most efficient EPSs 

already on the market today. Such an 

approach would not be supportable by 

any actual data—whether market-based 

or through the testing of available 

products. DOE notes that since a second 

determination is required in 2015, any 

further analysis of efficiency levels 

beyond the current best-in-market CSL 

would likely occur as part of that effort. 

As a result, based on currently available 

information, DOE chose to maintain its 

CSLs in the engineering analysis for 

today’s final rule. 

Brother International expressed 

concern that requiring more efficient 

EPSs in line with the proposed 

minimum efficiency active-mode limits 

would disrupt the stable product supply 

due to the lack of non-proprietary 

semiconductors (Brother International, 

No. 111 at p. 3). It noted that there is 

one key component needed to meet the 

proposed efficiency levels for EPSs, and 

that it has been told by EPS suppliers 

that there are a small number of 

component manufacturers that can 

produce this patented technology. 

Brother International did not provide 

any evidence to support this. However, 

during manufacturer interviews, DOE 

was consistently told the candidate 

standard levels (CSLs) analyzed for 

EPSs were technically achievable 

without the use of patented 

technologies. Each component 

manufacturer, original design 

manufacturer (ODMs), or those that 

design and manufacturer EPSs based on 

a set of specifications, and original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs), or 

those that purchase EPSs from ODMs to 

be solid in retail markets, interviewed 

had different pathways to achieving the 

proposed standard suggesting there are 

multiple design options to lower EPS 

energy consumption. At no point in 

discussions with manufacturers has 

DOE been told that a patented 

technology would be required to meet a 

CSL for any of the product classes, even 

at the maximum technologically feasible 

level. 

DOE also maintained the same CSLs 

for multiple-voltage EPSs (product class 

X) as it proposed in the NOPR because 

it received no comments and has no 

new information that would merit a 

change in the CSLs for this product 

class. The CSLs are shown in Table IV– 

3. 

TABLE IV–3—SUMMARY OF EPS CSLS FOR PRODUCT CLASS X 

CSL Reference Basis 

0 ......................... Market Bottom ......................................... Test data of the least efficient unit in the market. 

1 ......................... Mid-Market ............................................... Test data of the typical unit in the market.

2 ......................... Best-in-Market ......................................... Manufacturer’s data. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7872 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV–3—SUMMARY OF EPS CSLS FOR PRODUCT CLASS X—Continued 

CSL Reference Basis 

3 ......................... Max Tech ................................................. Maximum technologically feasible efficiency.

DOE received no comments 

concerning the CSLs for high-power 

EPSs in response to the NOPR. 

Therefore, DOE maintained its 

selections for CSLs from the NOPR in 

the engineering analysis for today’s final 

rule. The CSLs for product class H are 

listed in Table IV–4. 

TABLE IV–4—SUMMARY OF EPS CSLS FOR PRODUCT CLASS H 

CSL Reference Basis 

0 ........................ Line Frequency ................................................................................... Test data of a low-efficiency unit in the market. 

1 ........................ Switched-Mode Low Level ................................................................. Test data of a high-efficiency unit in the market. 

2 ........................ Switched-Mode High Level ................................................................. Manufacturers’ theoretical maximum efficiency. 

3 ........................ Scaled Best-in-Market ........................................................................ Scaled from 120W EPS CSL 3. 

4 ........................ Scaled Max Tech ................................................................................ Scaled from 120W EPS CSL 4. 

3. EPS Engineering Analysis 

Methodology 

DOE relied upon data gathered from 

manufacturer interviews to construct its 

engineering analysis for EPSs. DOE’s 

cost-efficiency analysis for each of the 

representative units in product class B 

was generated using aggregated 

manufacturer cost data. DOE attempted 

to corroborate these estimates by testing 

and tearing down several EPSs on the 

market. For those products that did not 

exactly match its representative units, 

DOE scaled the test results for output 

power, output voltage, and cord length 

as necessary to align with the 

representative unit specifications. The 

units were then torn down by iSuppli to 

estimate the manufacturer selling price 

(MSP) and create a unique costefficiency curve entirely based on 

measurable results. The test and 

teardown data were inconclusive and 

generally showed decreasing costs with 

increasing efficiency. DOE previously 

presented both sets of cost-efficiency 

data to stakeholders for comment and 

consistently received support for using 

the manufacturer data as the basis for 

any standard setting action. 

Stakeholders argued that the negative 

cost-efficiency trends seen in the 

teardown data were not representative 

of the EPS market and that the 

manufacturer data was much more 

consistent and reliable since the data 

were more comprehensive. Stakeholders 

indicated that the data collected from 

manufacturer interviews better reflected 

the industry trends because it was 

derived from the estimates of 

manufacturers who produce EPSs in 

volume rather than backed out from an 

overall BOM cost by iSuppli. Therefore, 

in section IV.C of the NOPR, DOE 

proposed to use only the data gathered 

from manufacturers for its engineering 

analysis. 

With respect to the scaled test results, 

Salcomp disagreed with DOE’s results, 

stating that the ‘‘scaled average 

efficiency results in the reference data 

are not in line with theoretical 

calculations related to 5V/1A EPSs’’ and 

that ‘‘it appears that the real effects of 

the cable have not been taken into 

account.’’ Salcomp also proposed that 

USB–A EPS products be measured 

without the cable, as EPS manufacturers 

do not know anything about the cables 

that are ultimately supplied with the 

product. (Salcomp, No. 73 at p. 1) 

NRDC suggested that the teardowns 

commissioned by DOE for the costefficiency curves were not conducted on 

EPSs of comparable utility, but 

commented that up-to-date 

manufacturer data should be sufficient 

to conduct an accurate cost-efficiency 

analysis going forward. (NRDC, No. 114 

at p. 11) 

As stated in DOE’s test procedure for 

single-voltage EPSs, ‘‘power supplies 

must be tested in their final, completed 

configuration in order to represent their 

measured efficiency on product labels 

or specification sheets.’’ (74 FR 13318) 

USB–A EPSs must, therefore, be tested 

with the USB cable, as supplied by the 

manufacturer of the EPS, connected. 

DOE took this into account as part of its 

engineering analysis methodology and 

established a representative DC cable 

length to help scale the measured 

efficiency of an EPS based on its 

nameplate output power and output 

voltage. As described in chapter 5 of the 

TSD, the resistivity of a wire is 

dependent on the resistivity of the 

copper used, the length of the wire, and 

the cross-sectional area of the wire. 

With all other factors the same, a longer 

cord length would increase the 

resistivity of the wire and subsequently 

increase the losses associated with the 

output cord, ultimately lowering the 

conversion efficiency of the EPS. 

Scaling the measured efficiency using a 

standard cable length meant that DOE 

needed to factor in any expected 

resistive losses associated with the 

current provided by the EPS in 

question. However, the scaling was 

applied not to correct for potential cable 

losses, but to take efficiency data 

measured with the manufactured cable 

and adjust it to the standard length. In 

all cases, the output cord loss was taken 

into account in the efficiency results of 

the EPSs DOE tested. Ultimately, these 

data were only used to support DOE’s 

CSLs and not directly factored into the 

cost-efficiency curves DOE used to 

select standard levels for EPSs. DOE 

relied only on manufacturer interview 

data in its cost-efficiency analysis. 

4. EPS Engineering Results 

DOE characterized the cost-efficiency 

relationship of the four representative 

units in product class B as shown in 

Table IV–5, Table IV–6, Table IV–7, and 

Table IV–8. During interviews, 

manufacturers indicated that their 

switched-mode EPSs currently meet 

CSL 1, the ENERGY STAR 2.0 

specification level. This factor is 

reflected in the analysis by setting the 

incremental MSP for the 18W, 60W, and 

120W EPSs to $0 at CSL 1, which means 

that there is no incremental cost above 

the baseline to achieve CSL 1. Costs for 

the 2.5W EPS, however, are estimated at 

$0.15 for CSL 1. This result occurs 

because of DOE’s assumption (based on 

available information) that the lowest 

cost solution for improving the 

efficiency of the 2.5W EPS is through 

the use of linear EPSs, which are 

manufactured both at the EISA 2007 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7873 

level as well as the ENERGY STAR 2.0 

level. Specifically, as commenters 

suggested, DOE examined linear EPSs 

and found that they might be a costeffective solution at CSL 0 and CSL 1 for 

2.5W EPSs. Thus, $0.15 indicates the 

incremental cost for a 2.5W linear EPS 

to achieve higher efficiency. For all four 

representative units, the more stringent 

CSLs—CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4— 

correspond to switched-mode EPSs 

designed during the same design cycle, 

which would cause their costs to 

increase with increased efficiency as 

more efficient designs require more 

efficient and more expensive 

components. 

NRDC had a number of comments on 

DOE’s cost-efficiency results from the 

NOPR. In general, NRDC asserted that 

DOE had overestimated the cost of 

efficiency improvements for the 2.5 

watt, 18 watt, and 60 watt representative 

units, based on NRDC’s own discussions 

with industry professionals. (NRDC, No. 

114 at p. 11) In some cases, DOE’s 

estimates for the incremental MSPs are 

nearly three times greater than NRDCs 

estimates. ASAP, who echoed these 

concerns, stated that the costs of highly 

efficient EPSs are rapidly declining and 

that DOE should reevaluate its estimates 

to reflect the most recent price trends. 

(ASAP, et al., No. 136 at p. 10) 

While ASAP and NRDC had 

comments concerning the costefficiency relationships of several 

representative units, many stakeholders 

mentioned the 60 watt representative 

unit cost-efficiency curves as being 

particularly skewed. NRDC stated that 

the fact that the 60 watt costs were 

higher than the 120 watt costs for most 

CSLs was not accurate, as higher power 

EPSs require higher material costs. They 

noted that perhaps DOE’s analysis of the 

60 watt unit included features unrelated 

to efficiency, which would explain the 

higher than expected costs for the lower 

order CSLs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 11) 

The PSMA submitted similar comments 

stating that the incremental costs for 

EPSs increase ‘‘steadily and predictably 

with power supply size’’ such that the 

60 watt incremental costs should be 

lower than those for the 120 watt 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.011</GPH>
7874 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

representative unit. (PSMA, No. 147 at 

p. 2) NEEP commented that the LCC 

results derived from the cost-efficiency 

curves for the 60 watt representative 

unit show unexplained irregularities 

that were attributed to manufacturerprovided cost data and suggested DOE 

conduct an additional independent 

engineering analysis on the 60 watt 

discrepancy. (NEEP, No. 160 at p. 2) 

These comments were based on the 

negative weighted-average LCC savings 

for the 60W representative unit at all 

CSLs above the baseline. DOE believes 

these results were due to the large 

incremental cost associated with 

moving from CSL 1 to CSL 2 and the 

relatively small increases in cost for the 

higher order CSLs. 

DOE aggregated costs from OEMs, 

ODMs and component manufacturers to 

reflect the costs associated with 

incremental improvements in the energy 

efficiency of four representative units 

within product class B. Those costs 

were presented as the manufacturer 

selling price (MSP), or the price that the 

OEM pays the ODM for an EPS that 

meets its specifications. These costs 

were estimated through a series of 

manufacturer interviews to establish a 

range of average markups and 

incremental costs for efficiency 

improvements. The MSPs gleaned from 

interviews included only improvements 

to efficiency-related components over 

the manufacturer’s baseline EPS model. 

Therefore, the incremental costs in 

DOE’s analyses are only representative 

of improvements to the energy 

efficiency of EPSs. 

DOE took the stakeholder comments 

into consideration when revising its 

engineering analysis for today’s final 

rule. NRDC’s assertion that the costs are 

overestimated for the 2.5W EPS 

representative unit fails to acknowledge 

that certain linear power supplies are 

still cost-effective and technically 

feasible for efficiencies up to CSL 1 for 

low power EPSs. The final costefficiency curve incorporates not only 

changes to switched-mode designs for 

higher efficiencies, but costs incurred by 

manufacturers of linear power supplies 

to improve the efficiency over the 

current designs. The result of this 

aggregation shows higher overall costs 

than estimated by NRDC for this 

representative unit. 

In revisiting the cost-efficiency 

curves, DOE noted that the 60W cost 

aggregation contained the largest 

concentration of data from manufacturer 

interviews conducted during the 

preliminary analysis. Since the LCC 

results for the 60W representative unit 

largely depend on the cost changes 

between the CSLs and the efficiency 

distribution of the current products on 

the market, DOE decided to revise its 

aggregation using only the most recent 

data gathered from manufacturer 

interviews to generate the costefficiency curves presented in today’s 

final rule. DOE believes that these 

curves better reflect the cost impacts of 

improving the efficiency of 60W EPSs 

and notes they align with NRDC’s 

incremental MSP estimates for 

achieving the efficiency level of the 

amended standard. The resulting costefficiency curve shows a substantially 

smaller incremental cost at the proposed 

standard level of $0.33 compared to 

$1.29 in the NOPR. This modification 

caused the life-cycle cost savings at the 

proposed standard level for the 60W 

representative unit to turn strongly 

positive from the negative result 

depicted in the NOPR. The full LCC 

impacts can be found in Section V.B.1.a. 

For the 2.5W, 18W, and 120W 

representative units, DOE maintained its 

cost estimates from the NOPR because 

they represent the aggregated results 

from DOE’s most recent data gathering 

efforts. 

Unlike product class B, DOE analyzed 

only a single 203W representative unit 

for multiple-voltage EPSs. In Chapter 5 

of the TSD, DOE outlines the costefficiency relationship for 203W 

multiple-voltage EPSs that it developed 

as part of the non-Class A EPS 

determination analysis. DOE received 

no comments on its engineering results 

for this product class and, therefore, 

maintained the same results in today’s 

final rule. The results for the 203W 

multiple-voltage EPS product class are 

shown in Table IV–9. 

Similar to the analysis of multiplevoltage EPSs, DOE analyzed one 345W 

representative unit for high-power EPSs. 

In chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, DOE 

indicated that it was considering 

applying the cost-efficiency relationship 

for 345W high-power single-voltage 

EPSs that it developed as part of the 

non-Class A EPS determination analysis 

to high-power EPSs. In the 

determination analysis, DOE derived 

costs for CSL 0 and CSL 1 from test and 

teardown data, whereas costs for CSL 2 

and CSL 3 came from manufacturer and 

component supplier interviews. DOE 

did not receive comments on this aspect 

of its approach in the NOPR. Hence, 

DOE used the results from the 

determination analysis to characterize 

the costs of the less-efficient CSLs for 

345W high-power EPSs (CSL 0 and CSL 

1) for today’s final rule. 

After discussions with its subject 

matter experts (SMEs), DOE believes 

that a 345W EPS can achieve higher 

efficiencies based on a theoretical model 

of a 360W EPS that exhibits the 

properties of three 120W EPSs 

connected in parallel. This model 

essentially demonstrates a ‘‘black box’’ 

approach that supplies the 

representative unit output voltage at a 

higher output current than a single 

120W unit would be able to provide. As 

each EPS in this system would be 

operating at an identical efficiency, the 

system as a whole would meet the same 

efficiency as any one EPS and, therefore, 

the 345W unit can be modeled as 

several 120W EPSs connected in 

parallel. 

These higher output devices are 

typically used with amateur radio 

equipment, which often transmit at 

power levels between 100 and 200 watts 

while simultaneously providing power 

to other components. DOE developed its 

costs for the higher-efficiency CSLs 

(CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4) based on its 

120W EPS analysis. DOE received no 

comments on this approach and thus 

retained the cost-efficiency relationship 

for the 345W EPS shown in Table IV– 

10 for today’s final rule. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7875 

5. EPS Equation Scaling 

In support of the NOPR, DOE 

presented an approach to deriving the 

average efficiency and no-load power 

consumption requirements for each CSL 

over the full range of output power for 

Class A EPSs in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. Mathematical equations define 

each CSL as a pair of relationships that 

are functions of nameplate output 

power: (1) Average active-mode 

efficiency and (2) no-load mode power 

consumption. These equations allowed 

DOE to describe a CSL for any 

nameplate output power and served as 

the basis for its proposed standards. A 

complete description of the equations 

can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

For the baseline CSL and CSL 1, DOE 

relied on equations from EISA 2007 and 

ENERGY STAR 2.0, respectively, rather 

than developing new equations. DOE 

took this approach because EISA created 

a mandatory standard that established a 

baseline for DOE’s analysis while the 

ENERGY STAR voluntary program 

served as an incentive for manufacturers 

to produce more efficient products in 

order to brand their products as 

ENERGY STAR compliant, a quality that 

that many consumers recognize and 

seek. Both equations are defined over 

ranges of output power, although the 

divisions between ranges are slightly 

different. EISA 2007 created divisions 

by establishing efficiency equations 

with breakpoints at 1 watt and 51 watts; 

ENERGY STAR 2.0 creates similar 

divisions at 1 watt and 49 watts. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A) (creating nameplate 

output categories of under 1 watt, 1 watt 

to not more than 51 watts, and over 51 

watts) and ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Single Voltage 

External AC–DC and AC–AC Power 

Supplies’’ (creating nameplate output 

categories of less than or equal to 1 watt, 

1 watt to not more than 49 watts, and 

greater than 49 watts). DOE developed 

equations for all other CSLs and for 

consistency and simplicity used the 

ENERGY STAR 2.0 divisions at 1 watt 

and 49 watts for all CSLs. These 

divisions were created in conjunction 

with the EPS product classes discussed 

in section IV.A.2.a as part of a complete 

analysis by the EPA when it drafted the 

ENERGY STAR program requirements 

for single-voltage external AC–DC and 

AC–AC power supplies. 

DOE derived CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 

4 by fitting equations to the efficiency 

values of their respective manufacturer 

and test data points for each 

representative unit. DOE used an 

equation of the form Y = a*ln(Pout) + 

b*Pout + c, for each of the nameplate 

output power ranges, where Y indicates 

the efficiency requirement; Pout

indicates the nameplate output power; 

and a, b, and c represent variables 

defined for each CSL. DOE ensured that 

the equations met three conditions: 

(1) The distance to each point was 

minimized. 

(2) The equation did not exceed the 

tested efficiencies. 

(3) DOE further restricted the 

parameter choice in order to ensure that 

the CSL curves adhered to a matched 

pairs approach fully detailed in chapter 

5 of the TSD. 

For the NOPR, DOE derived a revised 

max-tech scaling equation from data 

points obtained during manufacturer 

interviews as noted in section III.B.2.a. 

DOE received no comments averse to 

the revised max tech CSL equation. 

Therefore, DOE has maintained all of its 

CSL equations from the NOPR in today’s 

final rule. 

As in the NOPR, DOE scaled the CSL 

equations from product class B to the 

product classes representing low-voltage 

AC–DC and all AC–AC EPSs (product 

classes C, D, and E). See Chapter 5 of the 

TSD to today’s final rule for more 

information regarding DOE’s scaling 

methodology. The scaling for these 

equations was based on ENERGY STAR 

2.0, which separates AC–DC conversion 

and AC–AC conversion into ‘‘basicvoltage’’ and ‘‘low-voltage’’ categories. 

ENERGY STAR 2.0 sets less stringent 

efficiency levels for low-voltage EPSs 

because they cannot typically achieve 

the same efficiencies as basic-voltage 

EPSs due to inherent design limitations. 

Similarly, ENERGY STAR 2.0 sets less 

stringent no-load standards for AC–AC 

EPSs because the devices do not use the 

overhead circuitry found in AC–DC 

EPSs to limit no-load power dissipation. 

As previously stated, the power 

consumed by the additional AC–AC EPS 

circuitry would actually increase their 

no-load power consumption. DOE used 

this approach to develop CSLs other 

than the baseline CSL for product 

classes C, D, and E. Because the EISA 

2007 standard applies to all Class A 

EPSs, which comprise most of product 

classes B, C, D, and E, the baseline CSL 

is exactly the same for all four product 

classes. 

As described throughout the EPS 

rulemaking, DOE created less stringent 

CSLs for product classes C, D, and E 

based on the technical differences 

outlined in Section III.A. The efficiency 

equations for CSL 1 come directly from 

the ENERGY STAR 2.0 low-voltage 

equation because of the impact the 

ENERGY STAR 2.0 levels had on the 

EPS market. The low-voltage curves for 

CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 were created 

by using their respective CSL 2, CSL 3, 

and CSL 4 basic-voltage efficiency 

curves, and altering all equation 

parameters by the difference in the 

coefficients between the CSL 1 basicvoltage and low-voltage equations. This 

approach had the effect of shifting the 

CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 low-voltage 

curves downward from their 

corresponding basic-voltage CSL 2, CSL 

3, and CSL 4 curves, by a similar 

amount as the shift seen in the ENERGY 

STAR 2.0 equations. Today’s amended 

standards for product classes C, D, and 

E were established using this 

methodology. 

Eastman Kodak commented that the 

no-load equations should be a 

continuous function of output power for 

EPSs with nameplate output powers less 

than 250 watts. (Eastman Kodak, No. 

125 at p. 2) However, as explained, 

DOE’s approach is consistent with the 

EISA 2007 standards and the former 

ENERGY STAR 2.0 program for EPSs. In 

both cases, the no-load power 

requirement is a step function based on 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.013</GPH>
7876 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

23The term ‘‘curve fit’’ refers to generating an 

equation based on a set of data in order to describe 

the information mathematically. 

24 ‘‘Review Study on Commission Regulation (EC) 

No. 278/2009 External Power Supplies: Draft Final 

Report.’’ March 13, 2012. Prepared for European 

Commission—Directorate-General for Energy. 

http://www.powerint.com/sites/default/files/

greenroom/docs/EPSReviewStudy_

DraftFinalReport.pdf. 

the power output of the EPS. Using that 

assumption, DOE conducted an 

engineering analysis and found no 

strong correlation between no-load 

power and output power that would 

warrant deviating from the analytical 

structure of these programs. The 

equations for no-load power and activemode efficiency formed the foundation 

of DOE’s standards analysis, and the 

approach has been largely supported by 

stakeholders throughout the course of 

the rulemaking. Therefore, DOE 

maintained its step function equations 

for no-load power in amending the 

standards for EPSs in today’s final rule. 

After applying the approach described 

above and analyzing the products at 

issue, DOE believes that the ENERGY 

STAR 2.0 low-voltage standard equation 

for AC–DC conversion is an appropriate 

standard for multiple-voltage EPSs 

because lower power EPSs tend to be 

less efficient. DOE took into account 

that fact and has created an equation 

that scales with output power, should 

any low-power multiple-voltage EPSs 

enter the market in the future. As 

detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD, the 

ENERGY STAR 2.0 low-voltage equation 

matches the CSL equation DOE is 

adopting for the multiple-voltage EPS 

standard at the representative unit’s 

output power of 203 watts, but also sets 

less stringent efficiency standards for 

lower power EPSs. DOE applied the 

same constraints when fitting the 

equation to the test data as it did for 

product classes B, C, D, and E. DOE 

received no comments on this approach 

in setting a standard for multiplevoltage EPSs. 

For product class H (high-power 

EPSs), DOE set a discrete standard for 

all EPSs greater than 250 watts. DOE 

believes this is appropriate for two main 

reasons: (1) DOE is aware of only one 

application for high-power EPSs 

(amateur radios) and (2) this approach is 

consistent with the standard for product 

class B, which is a discrete level for all 

EPSs with nameplate output powers 

greater than 49 watts. In light of these 

facts, setting a single efficiency level as 

the standard for all EPSs with output 

power greater than 250 watts (highpower EPSs) appears to be a reasonable 

approach to ensure a minimal level of 

energy efficiency while minimizing the 

overall level of burden on 

manufacturers. DOE received no 

comments on this approach in setting a 

standard for high power EPSs. 

6. Proposed Standards 

a. Product Classes B, C, D, and E 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed standard 

levels for all the product classes that 

were analyzed as part of the EPS 

engineering analysis. For product 

classes B, C, D, and E, which contained 

Class A, medical, and some MADB EPSs 

broken out by type of power conversion 

and nameplate output voltage, DOE 

proposed CSL 3, or the best-in-market 

CSL. To develop the proposed standard 

level, DOE ‘‘curve fit’’ an equation to 

test results of the most efficient EPSs it 

could find on the market at each 

representative output power.23 DOE 

announced its intention to designate the 

proposed level ‘‘Level VI’’ in a revised 

and updated version of the International 

Efficiency Marking Protocol for EPSs. 

DOE received many comments on the 

proposed standard levels for product 

classes B, C, D, and E. 

Panasonic, Cobra Electronics, ITI, 

Salcomp, Duracell, the Republic of 

Korea, and Eastman Kodak all 

commented that DOE should forgo 

setting an EPS standard at level VI and 

adopt the current level V requirement as 

the Federal standard to harmonize with 

the E.U. and other international 

efficiency programs. (Panasonic, No. 

120 at p. 2; Cobra Electronics, No. 130 

at p. 8; ITI, No. 131 at p. 4, Salcomp, 

No. 73 at p. 2; Duracell, No. 109 at p. 

4; Republic of Korea, No. 148 at p. 1; 

Eastman Kodak, No. 125 at p. 2) ITI 

stated that DOE’s proposed standard 

‘‘breaks away from global harmonization 

efforts and would require significant 

industry-wide redesign,’’ and called it 

‘‘unjustifiable.’’ (ITI, No. 131 at p. 4) 

AHAM also supported harmonization 

efforts and asserted that level V is ‘‘the 

most stringent level that is 

technologically feasible.’’ (AHAM, No. 

124 at p. 7) These statements were 

supported by Philips, which suggested 

that DOE should adopt Level V, which 

is known to be technologically feasible, 

and contemplate higher levels in a later 

rule. (Philips, No. 128 at p. 3) ITI also 

suggested such a phased approach, in 

which DOE would first adopt a standard 

at Level V for Class A EPSs and later 

investigate mandatory or voluntary 

standards for non-Class A EPSs. (ITI, 

No. 131 at p. 5) Nokia claimed that the 

DOE standards proposal ‘‘lacks 

sufficient economic justification to 

warrant such swift and demanding 

changes.’’ (Nokia, No. 132 at p. 2) For 

all the reasons suggested by other 

stakeholders, the CEA noted that 

‘‘further analysis is needed before DOE 

promulgates an amended energy 

conservation standard for Class A 

external power supplies.’’ (CEA, No. 106 

at p. 5) 

Some interested parties made specific 

comments about the no-load power 

equation of the proposed standard. 

Flextronics claimed that with a 

compliance date two years from the 

publication of today’s final rule, DOE 

should decrease the no-load power 

proposal from 100mW to 50mW for 

EPSs for mobile phones. (Flextronics, 

No. 145 at p. 1) Conversely, Logitech 

argued that they had just undergone 

costly design improvements to meet the 

no-load power requirement for the 

former ENERGY STAR program for EPSs 

and the E.U., which is 300 mW. 

(Logitech, No. 157 at p. 1) 

DOE received support from energy 

efficiency advocates in favor of the 

standards proposed in the NOPR. NEEP 

noted that DOE’s proposal represents a 

strong push toward rapidly increasing 

the energy efficiency of EPSs. (NEEP, 

No. 160 at p. 2) ARRIS Group also 

supported DOE’s conclusion that 

‘‘changing to a code V energy efficiency 

requirement will have little to no 

material cost impact since the majority 

of EPS products already comply.’’ 

(ARRIS Group, No. 105 at p. 1) 

In any efficiency standards 

rulemaking, DOE seeks to identify the 

most stringent standard that is 

economically justified and technically 

feasible. In the NOPR for EPSs, DOE 

proposed to amend the EISA 2007 

regulations and increase the minimum 

efficiency standards to the best-inmarket levels identified in the 

engineering analysis. 

The comments submitted by 

manufacturers suggest that DOE has 

overestimated the capabilities of EPSs 

and that it should propose Level V as 

the federal standard (or equivalently to 

harmonize with the EU standards). The 

most recent EPS standards in the E.U. 

came into effect in 2011 and are equal 

to the Level V efficiency standard. 

However, more recent E.U. documents 

on EPS standards indicate a proposal to 

revise those standards to match the 

levels proposed by DOE in the NOPR by 

2017 for the no-load, 25%, 50%, 75%, 

and 100% loading scenarios. The E.U. is 

also considering an additional 10% 

loading requirement outside the average 

efficiency metric from the other four 

loading conditions.24 Other standards 

for EPSs outside the United States, 

including those in Canada and New 

Zealand, have set less stringent 

standards equal to the EISA 2007 level 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7877 

(level IV). In addition, the E.U. 

instituted standby power consumption 

standards in 2010 and will revise those 

standards effective 2013. DOE notes that 

current international efficiency 

standards for EPSs are not all 

harmonized around efficiency level V, 

but it is possible that efficiency 

standards in the U.S. and E.U. may 

harmonize around the standards 

announced in today’s final rule within 

the next several years. For more detail, 

see section IV.G.3 below and chapter 9 

of the TSD. 

As stakeholders have said, and as is 

shown in DOE’s engineering analysis, 

the majority of EPSs already meet or 

exceed the Level V requirements so, in 

addition to the most recent E.U. 

standards, the incremental cost to 

manufacturers to achieve this level is 

nearly zero and any additional energy 

savings beyond today’s market would be 

negligible. (ARRIS Group, No. 105 at p. 

1). The DOE analysis of EPS shipments 

projects a base case assumption of the 

efficiency of EPSs that would be 

shipped in the future if DOE did not 

issue today’s final rule. DOE only 

accounts for the energy savings and 

incremental costs that occur between 

this base case projection and the 

standards case that results from issuing 

today’s final rule. In the base case 

projection, DOE presumes that 69% of 

all EPSs sold in the United States in 

2015 would meet or exceed Level V, 

while 31% would only meet the Level 

IV requirements. This assumption is 

equal to the shipments-weighted 

average distribution for product classes 

B, C, D, and E, and is based on test 

results from the engineering analysis 

and assumptions about increases in 

product efficiency that would occur as 

a result of the ENERGY STAR program 

and mandatory standards in the 

European Union. Chapters 3 and 9 of 

the TSD describe DOE’s efficiency 

distribution assumptions in greater 

detail. While DOE believes the baseline 

efficiency levels used in today’s final 

rule are justified, DOE conducted an 

additional sensitivity analysis using 

different assumptions about the base 

case efficiency of EPSs that will be on 

the market in 2015. The results of this 

sensitivity analysis, presented in 

Appendix 10–A of the TSD, depict the 

national economic and energy impacts 

that would occur under alternative 

scenarios. 

Commenters also claimed, without 

providing any supporting data, that any 

standard that is more stringent than 

Level V is technically infeasible and 

economically unjustifiable despite 

DOE’s detailed analysis. The proposal 

put forth by DOE in the NOPR clearly 

points out that the selected standard 

level can be supported by products on 

the market and is not ‘‘technically 

infeasible’’. DOE outlines its complete 

analysis of the current EPS market as 

well as pathways to higher efficiencies 

based on information gathered from 

manufacturers and independent 

consultants in chapter 5 of the TSD to 

today’s final rule. 

Concerning the no-load mode 

proposal, DOE created matched pairings 

of efficiency and no-load power for all 

representative units, as discussed in 

section IV.C.2. Under that structure, any 

standard would match a continuous 

active-mode efficiency equation with a 

no-load step function. While DOE’s 

analysis shows that 50 mW is 

technically achievable, which is 

equivalent to Flextronic’s 

recommendation, it is only achievable 

for lower power EPSs (e.g., those for cell 

phones), and would not be applicable as 

a flat standard for all EPSs as outlined 

in Chapter 5 of the TSD. Therefore, in 

today’s final rule, DOE is not adopting 

a no-load power requirement that is flat 

and equivalent to 50 mW across all 

nameplate output powers and instead is 

adopting a step function equation that 

sets a specific no-load power limit for 

EPSs based on output power. 

DOE is not adopting a standard for 

either average active-mode efficiency or 

no-load power consumption for EPSs in 

product class C–1 in today’s final rule. 

DOE believes the low-voltage highcurrent output inherent in the design of 

these products limits their achievable 

efficiencies due to input rectification 

voltage drops relative to the output 

voltage, resistive losses in the higher 

current outputs, and the potential to 

decrease the utility of these products to 

improve efficiency by forcing 

manufacturers to utilize more expensive 

and larger components to meet the 

proposed standards. 

NRDC commented that indirect 

operation EPSs should be subject to the 

same standards as direct operation 

EPSs, citing a lack of technical 

differences between the two groups of 

products. NRDC asserted that the 

proposed battery charger standards, if 

adopted, might be insufficient to 

increase the efficiency of indirect 

operation EPSs to the levels shown in 

the EPS standards analysis to be costeffective. NRDC also expressed concern 

that because there is no obvious way to 

visually distinguish between direct and 

indirect operation EPSs, a manufacturer 

could circumvent standards by 

misrepresenting a direct operation EPS 

as an indirect operation EPS. (NRDC, 

No. 114 at p. 16) The California IOUs 

concurred with NRDC’s comments. (CA 

IOUs, No. 138 at p. 20) 

DOE continues to believe that a 

distinction between indirect and direct 

operation EPSs is justified. DOE 

recognizes that some wall adapters that 

are part of battery charging systems 

serve a different purpose than ‘‘regular’’ 

EPSs, have different design constraints, 

and should be regulated differently from 

each other. 

In the determination analysis and in 

the standards preliminary analysis, the 

characteristic that distinguished this 

group of devices was the presence of 

‘‘charge control.’’ (Non-Class A EPS 

Determination Final Rule, 75 FR 27170, 

May 14, 2010; Preliminary Analysis 

TSD, No. 31 at p. 78, September 2010) 

DOE concluded from this analysis that 

standards would be warranted for nonClass A EPSs based in part on its 

understanding that devices with charge 

control were outside the scope of 

analysis because they were intended to 

charge batteries and therefore not 

considered EPSs. This understanding 

carried over into the analyses conducted 

as part of the present standards 

rulemaking. 

This general approach has received 

support from manufacturers and 

utilities throughout the rulemaking 

process. For example, AHAM, PTI, and 

Wahl Clipper commented in response to 

the preliminary analysis that MADB 

wall adapters should be regulated as 

battery charger components, but not as 

EPSs. (AHAM, No. 42 at pp. 2, 3, 13; 

PTI, No. 45 at p. 4; Wahl Clipper, No. 

53 at p. 1) Similarly, PG&E, two other 

energy utilities, and five efficiency 

advocates submitted a joint comment 

expressing their support for requiring 

wall adapters that perform charge 

control functions to be regulated as 

battery charger components, but not as 

EPSs. (PG&E, et al., No. 47 at pp. 3–4) 

In the March 2012 NOPR, DOE 

maintained this approach but altered 

the specific criteria for differentiating 

between the two types of devices by 

proposing that those EPSs that cannot 

operate an end-use product directly 

would not be subject to the proposed 

standards. DOE continues to believe that 

it would be inappropriate to require 

indirect operation EPSs to meet the new 

and amended standards being adopted 

today. 

DOE notes that battery charger 

standards will be handled separately 

from EPSs. And while NRDC asserts that 

DOE’s proposed standards for battery 

chargers would not compel 

manufacturers to increase the efficiency 

of indirect operation EPSs, any battery 

charger standards DOE may adopt 

would need to achieve the maximum 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7878 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) These standards would 

be evaluated based on the expected 

improvements in the energy efficiency 

of battery chargers, not of the EPSs—for 

which Congress has created a separate 

regulatory scheme. Manufacturers 

would have the flexibility to decide how 

to modify their products to achieve the 

improvements in energy efficiency 

necessitated by any battery charger 

standard DOE might adopt. The 

available choices could include using 

more efficient EPSs or other alternative 

design paths. 

As for NRDC’s concern that 

manufacturers might mistakenly or 

intentionally misrepresent direct 

operation EPSs as indirect operation 

EPSs and circumvent any applicable 

standards, DOE notes that it has created 

a regulatory framework for EPSs that 

meet statutory requirements while 

minimizing complexity. To that end, 

DOE developed a straightforward 

method (discussed above) for 

identifying indirect operation EPSs. 

DOE believes it has developed a method 

that is simple enough that any 

manufacturer can use it to determine 

whether a given EPS is an indirect 

operation EPS. Furthermore, Class A 

indirect operation EPSs continue to be 

required to meet the standards in EISA 

2007 established by Congress. 

b. Product Class X 

DOE proposed adopting the ENERGY 

STAR specification for low-voltage EPSs 

as its standard for multiple-voltage 

EPSs. In DOE’s view, this standard 

would be economically justified because 

DOE’s analysis indicated that the 

standard would provide the greatest 

accumulation of net social benefits for 

the one product DOE analyzed in 

product class X (see section V.C.1.b of 

the NOPR). The equation on which this 

standard was based provided a means to 

apply the standard using a continuous 

function of output power that would 

readily enable a manufacturer to 

determine what efficiency level it would 

need to meet for any future multiplevoltage products that might be 

produced. DOE sought comment on this 

proposal from interested parties. 

Microsoft commented that DOE’s 

proposed standard for multiple-voltage 

EPSs does not yield results that are 

comparable or representative of actual 

use citing the fact that the game console 

EPS that would be required to meet the 

proposed standard is most efficient 

between the loading points it operates 

in most frequently, roughly between 46 

and 63 percent load. Microsoft believes 

that because DOE’s test procedure 

requires averaging the efficiency over 

multiple loading points beyond that 

range, the procedure would not 

accurately capture real world efficiency 

and energy savings potential of its game 

console EPS. (Microsoft, No. 110 at p. 2) 

The CEA agreed, stating that the 

‘‘standard for multiple-voltage EPSs is 

inappropriate for the one product 

impacted by it.’’ (CEA, No. 106 at p. 6) 

NRDC suggested that, in lieu of DOE’s 

proposed standard, multiple-voltage 

EPSs should be required to meet only 

the efficiency level of their lowest 

output voltage. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 14) 

In the case of multiple-voltage EPSs, 

DOE’s intent was to propose a 

continuous standard as a function of 

output power similar to the singlevoltage EPS proposal. While only one 

product currently falls into this class, 

this situation may not always be the 

case. To account for the possibility of 

additional types of multiple-voltage 

EPSs becoming commercially available, 

DOE proposed using an average 

efficiency metric over the four loading 

conditions identified in the multiplevoltage test procedure. Using the current 

methodology, any future products that 

are sold with multiple-voltage EPSs will 

have a universal test method and set of 

measurable efficiency metrics to 

evaluate against the new federal 

standard. 

Adopting the NRDC approach (i.e. 

setting requirements only on the lowest 

output voltage) would not ensure that 

the lowest voltage bus would provide 

any significant power to the end-use 

product in a real-world application. 

Consequently, the overall efficiency of 

the EPS could be far less than testing 

would indicate. In such a situation, a 

highly efficient lower voltage output 

would have a negligible impact on the 

overall system efficiency should the 

higher voltage output provide 

significantly more power to the end-use 

consumer product. For instance, the 

low-voltage output on the EPS in 

question provides only 2.5 percent of 

the overall system power at full load. 

While the output may be highly 

efficient, its overall impact on the 

system is minimal and using NRDC’s 

method would not allow DOE to 

properly capture the additional energy 

usage of the EPS. 

Manufacturers of multiple-voltage 

EPSs could also take advantage of such 

a loophole by designing a highly 

efficient low-voltage output despite its 

contribution, or lack thereof, to the 

overall energy consumption of the EPS 

while paying little attention to the 

higher voltage output(s). There are 

several ways manufacturers can design 

multiple output EPSs (i.e. multiple 

transformer taps, separate filter stages, 

paralleling several outputs of a single 

voltage) and there is no guarantee that 

improving one output bus would result 

in improvements to any other outputs. 

In any case where DOE does not 

measure all outputs, the reported energy 

consumption of the EPS (based on 

NRDC’s approach) would not be an 

accurate representation of how much 

energy a given device would use. In 

light of the potential for this 

problematic result, DOE is opting to 

adopt its proposed approach to ensure 

(1) the universal applicability of its 

procedure and the standard and (2) 

reasonably accurate measurements of 

energy efficiency for these products. 

c. Product Class H 

To develop the efficiency standard 

level proposed in the NOPR for product 

class H (high power) EPSs, DOE scaled 

the CSLs from the 120W representative 

unit to the 345W representative unit in 

the high power product class. Like the 

proposed standards for the other EPS 

product classes, DOE chose the most 

stringent level that was technologically 

feasible and economically justified. DOE 

sought comment on the methodology for 

selecting a standard for high power 

EPSs, and received only one comment. 

NRDC recommended that ‘‘DOE set 

the same efficiency levels for class H as 

for class B instead of the current 

proposal of 87.5%.’’ (NRDC, No. 114 at 

p. 14) However, like multiple-voltage 

EPSs, there is only one product 

(amateur radios) that DOE could 

identify that uses high power EPSs. The 

120W products in product class B have 

a representative nameplate output 

voltage of 19 volts while the high power 

EPSs in product class H have a 

representative nameplate output voltage 

of 13 volts. While the EPSs in product 

class B do not have higher nameplate 

output powers than 250 watts, the high 

power product class H covers all EPSs 

above 250 watts. In comparing the 120 

watt unit at 19 volts to the 345 watt unit 

at 13 volts, DOE found that the high 

power EPSs have much higher output 

currents since the nameplate output 

power (i.e. watts) is the product of 

nameplate output current and 

nameplate output voltage. Higher output 

currents create greater resistive losses 

associated with the output cord and 

secondary side filtering. When scaling 

the 120W results to the 345W 

representative unit, DOE adjusted for 

this disparity using the voltage scaling 

techniques it developed during its EPS 

testing, as detailed in chapter 5 of the 

TSD, and ultimately proposed an 

efficiency standard slightly lower than 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7879 

25An extensive discussion of the methodology 

and justification behind DOE’s general approach to 

markups calculation is presented in Larry Dale, et 

al. 2004. ‘‘An Analysis of Price Determination and 

Markups in the Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment Industry.’’ LBNL–52791. Available for 

download at http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/an_

analysis_of_price_determiniation_and_markups_

in_the_air_conditioning_and_heating_equipment_

industry_lbnl-52791.pdf. 

26 Internal losses are energy losses that occur 

during the power conversion process. Overhead 

circuitry refers to circuits and other components of 

the EPS, such as monitoring circuits, logic circuits, 

and LED indicator lights, that consume power but 

do not directly contribute power to the end-use 

application. 

the direct operation EPSs below 250W 

nameplate output power. This technical 

limitation on the achievable efficiency 

remains and the standards adopted in 

today’s final rule accounts for this 

limitation. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups in the distribution 

chain to convert the MSP estimates 

derived in the engineering analysis to 

consumer prices. At each step in the 

distribution chain, companies mark up 

the price of the product to cover 

business costs and profit margin. Given 

the variety of products that use EPSs, 

distribution varies depending on the 

product class and application. As such, 

DOE assumed that the dominant path to 

market establishes the retail price and, 

thus, the markup for a given 

application. The markups applied to 

end-use products that use EPSs are 

approximations of the EPS markups. 

In the case of EPSs, the dominant path 

to market typically involves an end-use 

product manufacturer (i.e. OEM) and 

retailer. DOE developed OEM and 

retailer markups by examining annual 

financial filings, such as Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K 

reports, from more than 80 publicly 

traded OEMs, retailers, and distributors 

engaged in the manufacturing and/or 

sales of consumer applications that use 

EPSs. 

DOE typically calculates two markups 

for each product in the markups 

analysis. These are: a markup applied to 

the baseline component of a product’s 

cost (referred to as a baseline markup) 

and a markup applied to the 

incremental cost increase that results 

from standards (referred to as an 

incremental markup). The incremental 

markup relates the change in the MSP 

of higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase) to the change 

in the retailer’s selling price. 

Commenting on retail markups, 

Phillips, Schumacher, and Wahl Clipper 

stated that the concept of margins is 

very significant to retailers, and it is not 

realistic to predict that retailers 

voluntarily will act in a way that 

reduces their margins. (Philips, No. 128 

at p. 6; Schumacher, No. 182 at p. 6; 

Wahl Clipper, No 153 at p. 2) Motorola 

commented that retailers will not be 

willing to lower their markups because 

product efficiency has increased. 

(Motorola Mobility, No. 121 at p. 4) In 

contrast, PTI stated that DOE’s estimates 

of markups are sufficient for the 

purposes of the analysis. (PTI, No. 133 

at p. 6) 

DOE recognizes that retailers may 

seek to preserve margins. However, 

DOE’s approach assumes that appliance 

retail markets are reasonably 

competitive, so that an increase in the 

manufacturing cost of appliances is not 

likely to contribute to a proportionate 

rise in retail profits, as would be 

expected to happen if markups 

remained constant. DOE’s methodology 

for estimating markups is based on a 

mix of economic theory, consultation 

with industry experts, and data from 

appliance retailers.25 In conducting 

research, DOE has found that empirical 

evidence is lacking with respect to 

appliance retailer markup practices 

when a product increases in cost (due 

to increased efficiency or other factors). 

DOE understands that real-world 

retailer markup practices vary 

depending on market conditions and on 

the magnitude of the change in cost of 

goods sold (CGS) associated with an 

increase in appliance efficiency. DOE 

acknowledges that detailed information 

on actual retail practices would be 

helpful in evaluating change in markups 

on products after appliance standards 

take effect. For this rulemaking, DOE 

requested data from stakeholders in 

support of alternative approaches to 

markups, as well as any data that shed 

light on actual practices by retailers; 

however, no such data was provided. 

Thus, DOE continues to use an 

approach that is consistent with 

economic theory of firm behavior in 

competitive markets. 

Chapter 6 of the TSD provides 

additional detail on the markups 

analysis. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The energy use analysis provides 

estimates of the annual energy 

consumption of EPSs at the considered 

efficiency levels. DOE uses these values 

in the LCC and PBP analyses and in the 

NIA. DOE estimated the annual energy 

use of EPSs in the field as they are used 

by consumers. 

EPSs are power conversion devices 

that transform input voltage to a suitable 

voltage for the end-use application they 

are powering. A portion of the energy 

that flows into an EPS flows out to an 

end-use product and, thus, cannot be 

considered to be consumed by the EPS. 

However, to provide the necessary 

output power, other factors contribute to 

EPS energy consumption, e.g., internal 

losses and overhead circuitry.26

Therefore, the traditional method for 

calculating energy consumption—by 

measuring the energy a product draws 

from mains while performing its 

intended function(s)—is not appropriate 

for EPSs because that method would not 

factor in the energy delivered by the 

EPS to the end-use application, and thus 

would overstate EPS energy 

consumption. Instead, DOE considered 

energy consumption to be the energy 

dissipated by the EPS (losses) and not 

delivered to the end-use product as a 

more accurate means to determine the 

energy consumption of these products. 

Once the energy and power 

requirements of those end-use products 

were determined, DOE considered them 

fixed, and DOE focused its analysis on 

how standards would affect the energy 

consumption of EPSs themselves. 

Applying a single usage profile to 

each application, DOE calculated the 

unit energy consumption for EPSs. In 

addition, DOE examined the usage 

profiles of multiple user types for 

applications where usage varies widely 

(for example, a light user and a heavy 

user or an amateur user and professional 

user). By examining these usage profiles 

DOE provided stakeholders with greater 

transparency in its energy consumption 

calculation, such that they could 

provide specific comments where DOE’s 

estimates were incorrect. 

AHAM voiced support for the usage 

profiles presented by DOE in the NOPR. 

While AHAM commented that DOE 

could more accurately capture the usage 

of infrequently used product classes, it 

largely supported DOE’s efforts to 

consider the variation in usage for EPSs. 

AHAM recommended that DOE 

reevaluate these usage profiles in the 

future to more accurately quantify the 

usage profiles for infrequently charged 

products. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 7) No 

other feedback was received on this 

issue. In light of the support expressed 

for its approach, and for the technical 

reasons explained above, DOE 

continued to apply the same approach. 

With respect to the various loading 

points DOE used to estimate energy 

usage, NRDC commented that DOE 

overestimated its loading point 

assumption for laptop computer EPSs in 

the ‘‘operating’’ application state, 

which, given the reduced EPS efficiency 

at lower loading point levels, would 

lead to an understatement of energy 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7880 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

27https://www.energystar.gov/products/specs/

node/143 (last accessed October 23, 2012). 

28Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by 

utilizing probability distributions instead of single 

values for certain inputs and variables. 

losses. (These EPSs fall in product class 

B.) NRDC pointed to a recent EPA 

dataset underlying the ENERGY STAR 

v6.0 Computer Specification Revision 27

that showed loading points for a 

comparable application state of 

approximately 10–20% for most 

products. This loading point range, 

however, differs from DOE’s test data, 

which showed the ‘‘operating’’ loading 

point to be at 28%. (NRDC, No. 114 at 

p. 18) 

To address this comment, DOE 

worked with the EPA to better 

understand the data that it used to 

estimate the loading point. DOE learned 

that EPA’s estimate was based on a 

separate set of empirical data from Ecma 

International (formerly the European 

Computer Manufacturers Association) 

in which measurements were taken 

from 17 notebook computers operating 

in real-world scenarios. DOE analyzed 

these data and found that idle loading 

points were approximately 30%, an 

estimate that is very much in line with 

DOE’s estimated loading point of 28%. 

Therefore, in developing the final 

standards, DOE relied on the loading 

points presented in the NOPR. 

DOE also explored high- and lowsavings scenarios in an LCC sensitivity 

analysis. As part of the sensitivity 

analysis, DOE considered alternate 

usage profiles and loading points to 

account for uncertainty in the average 

usage profiles and explore the effect that 

usage variations might have on energy 

consumption, life-cycle cost, and 

payback. Additional information on this 

sensitivity analysis is contained in 

appendix 8B to the TSD. 

DOE does not assume the existence of 

a rebound effect, in which consumers 

would increase use in response to an 

increase in energy efficiency and 

resulting decrease in operating costs. 

For EPSs, DOE expects that, in light of 

the small amount of savings expected to 

flow to each individual consumer over 

the course of the year, the rebound 

effect is likely to be negligible because 

consumers are unlikely to be aware of 

the efficiency improvements or notice 

the decrease in operating costs that 

would result from new standards for 

these products. DOE analyzed the 

impacts on individual consumers in its 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses described below. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

This section describes the LCC and 

payback period analyses and the 

spreadsheet model DOE used for 

analyzing the economic impacts of 

possible standards on individual 

consumers. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 and appendix 8A of the TSD. 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 

analyses using a spreadsheet model 

developed in Microsoft Excel. When 

combined with Crystal Ball (a 

commercially-available software 

program), the LCC and PBP model 

generates a Monte Carlo simulation 28 to 

perform the analysis by incorporating 

uncertainty and variability 

considerations. 

The LCC analysis estimates the 

impact of a standard on consumers by 

calculating the net cost of an EPS under 

a base-case scenario (in which no new 

energy conservation standard is in 

effect) and under a standards-case 

scenario (in which the proposed energy 

conservation standard is applied). The 

base-case scenario is determined by the 

efficiency level that a sampled 

consumer currently purchases, which 

may be above the baseline efficiency 

level. The life-cycle cost of a particular 

EPS is composed of the total installed 

cost (which includes manufacturer 

selling price, distribution chain 

markups, sales taxes, and any 

installation cost), operating expenses 

(energy and any maintenance costs), 

product lifetime, and discount rate. As 

noted in the NOPR, DOE considers 

installation costs to be zero for EPSs. 

The payback period is the change in 

purchase expense due to a more 

stringent energy conservation standard, 

divided by the change in annual 

operating cost that results from the 

standard. Stated more simply, the 

payback period is the time period it 

takes to recoup the increased purchase 

cost of a more-efficient product through 

energy savings. DOE expresses this 

period in years. 

Table IV–11 summarizes the approach 

and data that DOE used to derive the 

inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations 

for the NOPR and the changes made for 

today’s final rule. The following 

sections discuss these inputs and 

comments DOE received regarding its 

presentation of the LCC and PBP 

analyses in the NOPR, as well as DOE’s 

responses thereto. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7881 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.014</GPH>
7882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

29Series ID PCU33521–33521; http://

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

30Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax 

Rates. https://thestc.com/STRates.stm. 

31The U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of 

the Population for the United States, Regions, 

States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 

2009 http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/

totals/2009/tables/NST-EST2009-01.xls. 

1. Manufacturer Selling Price 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE used 

a combination of test and teardown 

results and manufacturer interview 

results to develop manufacturer selling 

prices. For the final rule, DOE 

maintained the manufacturer selling 

prices used in the NOPR analysis, with 

the exception of the 60-Watt 

representative unit, as discussed in 

section IV.C. Further detail on the MSPs 

can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

Examination of historical price data 

for a number of appliances that have 

been subject to energy conservation 

standards indicates that an assumption 

of constant real prices and costs may 

overestimate long-term trends in 

appliance prices. Economic literature 

and historical data suggest that the real 

costs of these products may in fact trend 

downward over time according to 

‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience’’ curves. On 

February 22, 2011, DOE published a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA, 76 

FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider 

improving regulatory analysis by 

addressing equipment price trends. In 

the NODA, DOE proposed that when 

sufficiently long-term data are available 

on the cost or price trends for a given 

product, it would analyze the available 

data to forecast future trends. 

To forecast a price trend for the 

NOPR, DOE considered the experience 

curve approach, in which an experience 

rate parameter is derived using two 

historical data series on price and 

cumulative production, but in the 

absence of historical data on shipments 

of EPSs and of sufficient historical 

Producer Price Index (PPI) data for 

small electrical appliance 

manufacturing from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS),29 DOE could not use 

this approach. This situation is partially 

due to the nature of EPS design. EPSs 

are made up of many electrical 

components whose size, cost, and 

performance rapidly change, which 

leads to relatively short design lifetimes. 

DOE also considered performing an 

exponential fit on the deflated AEO’s 

Projected Price Indexes that most 

narrowly include EPSs. However, DOE 

believes that these indexes are too broad 

to accurately capture the trend for EPSs. 

Furthermore, EPSs are not typical 

consumer products; they are more like 

a commodity that OEMs purchase. 

Given the uncertainty, DOE did not 

incorporate product price changes into 

the NOPR analysis and is not including 

them in today’s final rule. For the NIA, 

DOE also analyzed the sensitivity of 

results to two alternative EPS price 

forecasts. Appendix 10–B of the NOPR 

TSD describes the derivation of 

alternative price forecasts. 

2. Markups 

DOE applies a series of markups to 

the MSP to account for the various 

distribution chain markups applied to 

the analyzed product. These markups 

are evaluated for each application 

individually, depending on its path to 

market. Additionally, DOE splits its 

markups into ‘‘baseline’’ and 

‘‘incremental’’ markups. The baseline 

markup is applied to the entire MSP of 

the baseline product. The incremental 

markups are then applied to the 

marginal increase in MSP over the 

baseline’s MSP. The approach used for 

markups in the NOPR was maintained 

for the final rule. Further detail on the 

markups can be found in section IV.D 

above and in chapter 6 of the TSD. 

3. Sales Tax 

As in the NOPR, DOE obtained State 

and local sales tax data from the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse for the final rule. The 

data represented weighted averages that 

include county and city rates. DOE used 

the data to compute populationweighted average tax values for each 

Census division and four large States 

(New York, California, Texas, and 

Florida). For the final rule, DOE 

retained this methodology and used 

updated sales tax data from the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse.30 DOE also obtained 

up-to-date population estimates from 

the U.S. Census Bureau for today’s final 

rule.31

4. Installation Cost 

As detailed in the NOPR, DOE 

considered installation costs to be zero 

for EPSs because installation would 

typically entail a consumer simply 

unpacking the EPS from the box in 

which it was sold and connecting the 

device to mains power and its 

associated product. Because the cost of 

this ‘‘installation’’ (which may be 

considered temporary, as intermittently 

used devices might be unplugged for 

storage) is not quantifiable in dollar 

terms, DOE considered the installation 

cost to be zero. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7883 

32U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 

Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. 

November, 2010. Washington, DC http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 

33U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 

Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2013. June, 

2013. Washington, DC http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ 

aeo/. 

34The GSMA Universal Charging Solution is an 

agreement between 17 mobile operators and 

manufacturers to have the majority of all new 

mobile phones support a universal charging 

connector by January 1, 2012. The press release for 

the agreement can be accessed here: http:// 

www.gsma.com/newsroom/mobile-industry-unitesto-drive-universal-charging-solution-for-mobilephones/. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

noted that no installation costs were 

accounted for in the LCC and PBP 

calculations. NEEA pointed out that the 

LCC focuses on incremental costs, rather 

than overall costs. It noted that it would 

be very difficult to find data supporting 

an installation cost that increases with 

increasing efficiency levels. (NEEA, 

Pub. Mtg. Transcript, No. 104 at p. 189) 

DOE agrees with the comments made by 

NEEA and has maintained zero 

installation costs for the final rule 

analysis. 

5. Maintenance Cost 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE did not 

consider repair or maintenance costs for 

EPSs. In making this decision, DOE 

recognized that the service life of an 

EPS typically exceeds that of the 

consumer product it powers. 

Furthermore, DOE noted that the cost to 

repair the EPS might exceed the initial 

purchase cost as these products are 

relatively low cost. Thus, DOE 

estimated that it would be extremely 

unlikely that a consumer would incur 

repair or maintenance costs for an EPS. 

Also, if an EPS failed, DOE expects that 

consumers would typically discard the 

EPS and purchase a replacement. DOE 

received no comments challenging this 

assumption and has continued relying 

on this assumption for purposes of 

calculating the final rule’s potential 

costs and benefits. 

6. Product Price Forecast 

As noted in section IV.F.1, to derive 

its central estimates DOE assumed no 

change in EPS prices over the 2015– 

2044 period. In addition, DOE 

conducted a sensitivity analysis using 

two alternative price trends based on 

AEO indexes. These price trends, and 

the NPV results from the associated 

sensitivity cases, are described in 

appendix 10–B of the TSD. 

7. Unit Energy Consumption 

The final rule analysis uses the same 

approach for determining UECs as the 

one used in the NOPR. The UEC was 

determined for each application based 

on estimated loading points and usage 

profiles. Further detail on the UEC 

calculations can be found in section 

IV.E above and in chapter 7 of the TSD. 

8. Electricity Prices 

DOE determined energy prices by 

deriving regional average prices for 13 

geographic areas consisting of the nine 

U.S. Census divisions, with four large 

states (New York, Florida, Texas, and 

California) treated separately. The 

derivation of prices was based on data 

in EIA’s Form EIA–861. For the final 

rule, DOE updated to EIA’s Form EIA– 

861 2011. 

9. Electricity Price Trends 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE used data 

from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO) 2010 to project electricity prices 

to the end of the product lifetime.32 For 

the final rule, DOE used the final release 

of the AEO 2013,33 which contained 

reference, high- and low-economicgrowth scenarios. DOE received no 

comments on the electricity price 

forecasts it used in its analyses. 

10. Lifetime 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE 

considered the lifetime of an EPS to be 

from the moment it is purchased for 

end-use up until the time when it is 

permanently retired from service. 

Because the typical EPS is purchased for 

use with a single associated application, 

DOE assumed that it would remain in 

service for as long as the application 

does. Even though many of the 

technology options to improve EPS 

efficiencies may result in an increased 

useful life for the EPS, the lifetime of 

the EPS is still directly tied to the 

lifetime of its associated application. 

With the exception of EPSs for mobile 

phones and smartphones (see below), 

the typical consumer will not continue 

to use an EPS once its application has 

been discarded. For this reason, DOE 

used the same lifetime estimate for the 

baseline and standard level designs of 

each application for the LCC and PBP 

analyses. DOE maintained this approach 

in the final rule analysis. Further detail 

on product lifetimes and how they 

relate to applications can be found in 

chapter 3 of the TSD. 

The one exception to this approach 

(i.e. that EPSs do not exceed the lifetime 

of their associated end-use products) is 

the lifetime of EPSs for mobile phones 

and smartphones. While the typical 

length of a mobile phone contract is two 

years, and many phones are replaced 

and no longer used after two years, DOE 

assumed that the EPSs for these 

products will remain in use for an 

average of four years. This assumption 

is based on an expected standardization 

of the market around micro-USB plug 

technology, driven largely by the GSMA 

Universal Charging Solution.34

However, Motorola Mobility 

commented that DOE incorrectly 

assumed that the mobile phone market 

is standardizing around a micro-USB 

plug. Motorola Mobility stated that as 

batteries increase in storage capacity, 

manufacturers may need to abandon 

micro-USB technology because of the 

limits it places on charge currents. 

(Motorola Mobility, No. 121 at p. 7) 

To verify that this evolution towards 

micro-USB plug technology is in fact 

taking place, DOE examined more than 

30 top-selling basic mobile phone and 

smartphone models offered online by 

Amazon.com, Sprint, Verizon Wireless, 

T-Mobile, and AT&T. DOE found that 

all of the newest smartphone models, 

other than the Apple iPhone, use microUSB plug technology. DOE expects the 

micro-USB market to increase as more 

phones comply with the IEC 62684– 

2011. This standard mandates the use of 

common micro-USB chargers for all 

cellphones and is aimed at 

standardizing EPSs across all mobile 

phone manufacturers for the benefit of 

the consumer. 

If new EPSs are compatible with a 

wide range of mobile phone and 

smartphone models, a consumer may 

continue to use the EPS from their old 

phone after upgrading to a new phone. 

Even though it is currently standard 

practice to receive a new EPS with a 

phone upgrade, DOE assumes that in the 

near future consumers will no longer 

expect manufacturers to include an EPS 

with each new phone. 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE 

compared LCC results for each CSL for 

mobile and smartphones with a twoyear lifetime, to those with a four-year 

lifetime. Assuming a lifetime of two 

(rather than four) years for mobile 

phone and smartphone EPSs resulted in 

lower life-cycle cost savings (or greater 

net costs) for consumers of those 

products. However, the net effect on 

Product Class B as a whole was 

negligible because mobile phones and 

smartphones together comprise only 7 

percent of shipments in Product Class B. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

this approach following the NOPR 

publication, and therefore retained the 

same lifetime approach used in the 

NOPR for the final rule analysis. LCC 

results for these and all other 

applications in Product Class B are 

shown in chapter 11 of the TSD. 

DOE notes that the lifetime of the EPS 

is directly tied to the lifetime of its 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7884 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

35http://ww.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/

scfindex.htm. 

36U.S. Census Bureau. The 2010 Statistical 

Abstract. Table 607—Employment by Industry. 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/

tables/10s0607.xls. 

37U.S. Census Bureau. The 2010 Statistical 

Abstract. Table 484—Federal Civilian Employment 

and Annual Payroll by Branch. http://

www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/

10s0484.xls. 

38U.S. Census Bureau. Government Employment 

and Payroll. 2008 State and Local Government. 

http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/08stlall.xls. 

associated application, even if many of 

the technology options to improve EPS 

efficiencies may result in a longer useful 

life for the EPS. The typical consumer 

will not use the EPS once the 

application has been discarded. For this 

reason, the baseline and standard level 

designs use the same lifetime estimate 

for the LCC and PBP analysis. See 

chapter 8 of the TSD for more details. 

11. Discount Rate 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE derived 

residential discount rates by identifying 

all possible debt or asset classes that 

might be used to purchase and operate 

products, including household assets 

that might be affected indirectly. DOE 

estimated the average shares of the 

various debt and equity classes in the 

average U.S. household equity and debt 

portfolios using data from the Survey of 

Consumer Finances (SCF) 35 from 1989 

to 2007. DOE used the mean share of 

each class across the seven sample years 

as a basis for estimating the effective 

financing rate for products. DOE 

estimated interest or return rates 

associated with each type of equity and 

debt using SCF data and other sources. 

The mean real effective rate across the 

classes of household debt and equity, 

weighted by the shares of each class, is 

5.1 percent. 

For the commercial sector, DOE 

derived the discount rate from the cost 

of capital of publicly-traded firms 

falling in the categories of products that 

involve the purchase of EPSs. To obtain 

an average discount rate value for the 

commercial sector, DOE used the share 

of each category in total paid employees 

provided by the U.S. Census Bureau 36

and Federal,37 State, and local 38

governments. By multiplying the 

discount rate for each category by its 

share of paid employees, DOE derived a 

commercial discount rate of 7.1 percent. 

For the final rule, DOE used the same 

methodology as the preliminary analysis 

and NOPR with applicable updates to 

data sources. When deriving the 

residential discount rates, DOE added 

the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances 

to their data set. For all time-series data, 

DOE evaluated rates over the 30-year 

time period of 1983–2012. The new 

discount rates were derived as 5.2 

percent and 5.1 percent in the 

residential and commercial sectors, 

respectively. For further details on 

discount rates, see chapter 8 and 

appendix 8D of the TSD. 

12. Sectors Analyzed 

The NOPR analysis included an 

examination of a weighted average of 

the residential and commercial sectors 

as the reference case scenario. 

Additionally, all application inputs 

were specified as either residential or 

commercial sector data. Using these 

inputs, DOE then sampled each 

application based on its shipment 

weighting and used the appropriate 

residential or commercial inputs based 

on the sector of the sampled 

application. This approach provided 

more specificity as to the appropriate 

input values for each sector, and 

permitted an examination of the LCC 

results for a given representative unit or 

product class in total. DOE maintained 

this approach in the final rule. For 

further details on sectors analyzed, see 

chapter 8 of the TSD. 

13. Base Case Market Efficiency 

Distribution 

For purposes of conducting the LCC 

analysis, DOE analyzed candidate 

standard levels relative to a base case 

(i.e., a case without new federal energy 

conservation standards). This analysis 

required an estimate of the distribution 

of product efficiencies in the base case 

(i.e., what consumers would have 

purchased in 2015 in the absence of 

new federal standards). Rather than 

analyzing the impacts of a particular 

standard level assuming that all 

consumers will purchase products at the 

baseline efficiency level, DOE 

conducted the analysis by taking into 

account the breadth of product energy 

efficiencies that consumers are expected 

to purchase under the base case. 

In preparing the NOPR analysis, DOE 

derived base case market efficiency 

distributions that were specific to each 

application where it had sufficient data 

to do so. This approach helped to 

ensure that the market distribution for 

applications with fewer shipments was 

not disproportionately skewed by the 

market distribution of the applications 

with the majority of shipments. As a 

result, the updated analysis more 

accurately accounted for LCC and PBP 

impacts. For today’s final rule, DOE 

maintained the base case market 

efficiency distributions used in the 

NOPR analysis. 

14. Compliance Date 

The compliance date is the date when 

a new standard becomes operative, i.e., 

the date by which EPS manufacturers 

must manufacture products that comply 

with the standard. DOE calculated the 

LCC savings for all consumers as if each 

would purchase a new product in the 

year that manufacturers would be 

required to meet the new standard. DOE 

used a compliance date of 2013 in the 

analysis it prepared for its March 2012 

NOPR and a compliance date of 2015 in 

the final rule analysis. 

15. Payback Period Inputs 

The PBP is the amount of time a 

consumer needs to recover the assumed 

additional costs of a more-efficient 

product through lower operating costs. 

As in the NOPR, DOE used a ‘‘simple’’ 

PBP for the final rule, because the PBP 

does not take into account other changes 

in operating expenses over time or the 

time value of money. As inputs to the 

PBP analysis, DOE used the incremental 

installed cost of the product to the 

consumer for each efficiency level, as 

well as the first-year annual operating 

costs for each efficiency level. The 

calculation requires the same inputs as 

the LCC, except for energy price trends 

and discount rates; only energy prices 

for the year the standard becomes 

required for compliance (2015 in this 

case) are needed. 

DOE received multiple comments on 

its payback period analysis. ITI pointed 

out that the NOPR stated ‘‘a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year.’’ (ITI, No. 131 at p. 

6) ITI further noted that it was aware of 

preliminary cost-benefit analyses that 

indicate costs of the proposal exceeding 

the benefits to consumers by more than 

10 times during the first year. Id. As ITI 

did not provide any data, DOE was 

unable to verify this claim. 

Cobra Electronics also asserted that 

the projected energy savings would 

yield benefits for a minority of 

consumers and viewed the payback 

period as requiring that the price the 

consumer pays for a product will not 

increase more than three times what the 

value of the energy savings will be 

during the first year after its purchase. 

(Cobra Electronics, No. 130 at p. 7) 

DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), if the additional cost 

to the consumer of purchasing the 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7885 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, there shall be a rebuttable 

presumption that such standard level is 

economically justified. In essence, the 

statute creates a presumption that a 

standard level satisfying this condition 

would be economically justified. It does 

not, however, indicate that the standard 

is necessarily economically justified if 

the payback period is under three years, 

nor does it indicate that the rebuttable 

presumption is the only methodology to 

show economic justification. DOE notes 

that it does not perform a stand-alone 

rebuttable presumption analysis, as it is 

already embodied in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. The rebuttable presumption is 

an alternative to the consideration of the 

seven factors set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII) for establishing 

economic justification. The LCC and 

PBP analyses DOE conducted as part of 

the NOPR show that the standard levels 

proposed for EPSs in product class B are 

economically justified. Furthermore, 

DOE notes that in today’s final rule, 

three out of four of the representative 

units for product class B have payback 

periods under three years, qualifying the 

adopted standard level for these 

representative units as economically 

justified under the rebuttable 

presumption. (The rebuttable 

presumption payback period is 

discussed further in section III.E.2 

above, section V.B.1.c below, and in 

chapter 8 of the TSD.) 

ARRIS Group also expressed concern 

over the payback periods presented in 

the NOPR. It noted that adjusting to a 

Level V baseline and averaging cost 

savings across all output powers would 

more than double the payback period to 

around 7 years, which would exceed the 

product’s lifetime and provide no 

justified savings for the user. (ARRIS 

Group, No. 105 at p. 2) 

As noted in section IV.A.1, level IV is 

the current federal standard, and 

therefore, units that meet level IV 

efficiency are currently permitted to be 

sold in the United States. While 

voluntary programs and efficiency 

standards outside the United States are 

driving the improvement of EPSs so that 

many EPSs sold in the United States 

meet level V, DOE has observed that 

EPSs that meet level IV currently exist 

in the marketplace. Therefore, as 

discussed in section C.6, DOE does not 

believe that adjusting the baseline 

assumption for all EPSs to level V 

would be appropriate. LCC savings 

estimates are weighted averages of the 

savings from improving efficiency from 

each efficiency level below the standard 

level up to the standard level. Thus, 

DOE’s analysis accounts for the large 

percentage of units that would already 

be at level V in the absence of amended 

federal standards. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

Projections of product shipments are 

needed to predict the impacts standards 

will have on the Nation. DOE develops 

shipment projections based on an 

analysis of key market drivers for each 

considered product. In DOE’s shipments 

model, shipments of products were 

calculated based on current shipments 

of product applications powered by 

EPSs. For the National Impact Analysis, 

DOE built an inventory model to track 

shipments over their lifetime to 

determine the vintage of units in the 

installed base for each year of the 

analysis period. 

1. Shipment Growth Rate 

In the NOPR, DOE noted that the 

market for EPSs had grown 

tremendously in the previous ten years. 

Additionally, DOE found that many 

market reports had predicted enormous 

future growth for the applications that 

employ EPSs. However, in projecting 

the size of these markets over the next 

30-years, DOE considered the possibility 

that much of the market growth 

associated with EPSs had already 

occurred. In many reports predicting 

growth of applications that employ 

EPSs, DOE noted that growth was 

predicted for new applications, but 

older applications were generally not 

included. That is, EPS demand did not 

grow, but the products using these 

devices have transitioned to a new 

product mix. For example, during its 

initial market assessment, DOE 

identified mobile phones, digital 

cameras, personal digital assistants, and 

MP3 players as applications that use 

EPSs. However, in the past several 

years, the use of smart phones, which 

can function as all four of these 

individual applications, has accelerated, 

and these individual products may no 

longer be sold in large volumes in the 

near future. A quantitative example of 

this is shown in Table IV–12. 

TABLE IV–12—EXAMPLE OF PRODUCT TRANSITION

Application 2007 Shipments 2008 Shipments 2009 Shipments 

Smart Phones ............................................................................................................ 19,500,000 28,555,000 41,163,000 

Mobile Phones ........................................................................................................... 101,500,000 102,775,000 94,239,000 

Personal Digital Assistants ........................................................................................ 2,175,000 1,977,000 1,750,000 

MP3 Players .............................................................................................................. 48,020,000 43,731,000 40,101,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... 171,195,000 177,038,000 177,253,000 

With this in mind, DOE based its 

shipments projections such that the percapita consumption of EPSs will remain 

steady over time, and that the overall 

number of individual units that use 

EPSs will grow at the same rate as the 

U.S. population. 

In the NOPR analysis, to estimate 

future market size while assuming no 

change in the per-capita EPS purchase 

rate, DOE used the projected population 

growth rate as the compound annual 

market growth rate. Population growth 

rate values were obtained from the U.S. 

Census Bureau 2009 National 

Projections, which forecast U.S. resident 

population through 2050. DOE took the 

average annual population growth rate, 

0.75 percent, and applied this rate to all 

EPS product classes. 

NRDC commented that EPS 

shipments had been growing 

significantly faster than the growth 

shown in the NOPR, driven in part by 

growth in consumer electronics and 

portable appliances over the previous 

few years. They attributed the slower 

shipment growth in 2009 and 2010 to 

the recession. By 2042, NRDC projected 

that annual shipments would grow to 

1.3 billion units, 32% higher than DOE’s 

projection of 1.0 billion units. (NRDC, 

No. 114 at p. 19) The California 

Investor-Owned Utilities also asserted 

that EPS stocks would grow faster than 

the population. These faster growth 

rates would increase the energy savings 

attributable to the standards. The CA 

IOU’s stated that they supported the 

conclusions of NRDC, but did not 

present additional data of their own. 

(CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 20) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7886 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

39EPA, ‘‘ENERGY STAR External Power Supplies 

AC–DC Product List,’’ May 24, 2010 and EPA, 

‘‘ENERGY STAR External Power Supplies AC–AC 

Product List,’’ May 24, 2010. Both documents last 

retrieved on May 28, 2010 from http://

www.energystar.gov/

index.cfm?fuseaction=products_for_

partners.showEPS. 

40EPA, ‘‘ENERGY STAR EPS EUP Sunset 

Decision Memo,’’ July 19, 2010. Last retrieved on 

July 8, 2011 from http://www.energystar.gov/ia/

partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/

eps_eup_sunset_decision_july2010.pdf. 

41 ‘‘Review Study on Commission Regulation (EC) 

No. 278/2009 External Power Supplies: Draft Final 

Report.’’ March 13, 2012. Prepared for European 

Commission—Directorate-General for Energy. 

http://www.powerint.com/sites/default/files/

greenroom/docs/EPSReviewStudy_

DraftFinalReport.pdf. 

DOE recognizes that shipments for 

certain applications are increasing very 

rapidly. However, DOE researched 

product growth trends dating back to 

2006 and found that other products, like 

digital cameras, have seen flat 

shipments. Some critical applications 

have even had shipments decline yearover-year. There is also significant 

convergence in the consumer 

electronics industry, in which one new 

device may replace multiple retired 

devices (such as a single smart phone 

replacing a mobile phone, digital 

camera, GPS device, and PDA). DOE 

seeks to forecast shipments for EPSs as 

a whole, but given the complexity of 

these markets, any attempts to forecast 

behavior of the market will be 

inherently inexact. Therefore, in today’s 

final rule, DOE decided to maintain its 

assumption of 0.75% growth per year 

from the NOPR. In its shipment 

forecasts, DOE projects that by 2044, 

shipments of EPSs will be 30 percent 

greater than they were in 2009. 

2. Product Class Lifetime 

For the NOPR, DOE calculated 

product class lifetime profiles using the 

percentage of shipments of applications 

within a given product class, and the 

lifetimes of those applications. These 

values were combined to estimate the 

percentage of units of a given vintage 

remaining in use in each year following 

the initial year in which those units 

were shipped and placed in service. 

DOE received no comments regarding 

this methodology and maintained this 

methodology for the Final Rule. For 

more information on the calculation of 

product class lifetime profiles, see 

chapter 10 of the TSD. 

3. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency forecasted for 

the base case (without new and 

amended standards) and each of the 

standards cases. Chapter 3 of the TSD 

explains how DOE developed efficiency 

distributions (which yield shipmentweighted average efficiency) for EPS 

product classes for the first year of the 

forecast period. To project the trend in 

efficiency over the entire forecast 

period, DOE considered recent 

standards, voluntary programs such as 

ENERGY STAR, and other trends. 

DOE found two programs that could 

influence domestic EPS efficiency in the 

short term: (1) The ENERGY STAR 

program for EPSs (called ‘‘external 

power adapters’’), which specified that 

EPSs be at or above CSL 1 and (2) the 

European Union’s (EU’s) Eco-design 

Requirements on Energy Using 

Products. When the Preliminary 

Analysis was published, the ENERGY 

STAR program was very active, with 

more than 3,300 qualified products as of 

May 2010.39 However, EPA announced 

that this program would end on 

December 31, 2010.40 The EU program 

requires that EPSs sold in the EU be at 

or above CSL 1, effective April 2011. 

This program applies primarily to Class 

A EPSs. Recently published documents 

indicate that the EU is currently 

considering an update to its Ecodesign 

requirements for EPSs which would 

bring them to a level between levels V 

and VI by 2015. These documents also 

indicate that the EU’s approach would 

bring the EU into harmony with DOE’s 

proposed level VI standards by 2017. 

This approach, however, has not been 

finalized by the EU. The same 

documents also include a proposal for a 

more efficient standard—approximately 

0.25% more efficient than level VI—to 

come into effect in 2019.41

Because Europe currently represents 

approximately one-third of the global 

EPS market, DOE believes that 

standards established by the EU will 

affect the U.S. market, due to the global 

nature of EPS design, production, and 

distribution. With the EU and previous 

ENERGY STAR programs in mind, 

DOE’s NOPR analysis assumed that 

approximately half of the Class A EPS 

market at CSL 0 in 2009 would 

transition to CSL 1 by 2013 and that 

there would be no further improvement 

in the market in the absence of 

standards. Any EU standards that would 

come into effect after the beginning of 

the analysis period in 2015 have not 

been announced officially; therefore, 

DOE’s analysis does not account for any 

additional improvement in EPS 

efficiency beyond the above discussed 

improvements. Aside from the 

comments from ARRIS Group addressed 

above in sections IV.A.2 and IV.C.6, 

DOE did not receive comments on the 

improvement of EPS efficiency between 

2009 and the beginning of the analysis 

period in 2015, or other factors that may 

affect EPS efficiency after 2015 in the 

absence of federal standards. Therefore, 

DOE is maintaining this assumption for 

the Final Rule. 

To estimate efficiency trends in the 

standards cases, DOE has used ‘‘roll-up’’ 

and/or ‘‘shift’’ scenarios in its standards 

rulemakings. Under the ‘‘roll-up’’ 

scenario, DOE assumes: (1) Product 

efficiencies in the base case that do not 

meet the standard level under 

consideration would ‘‘roll-up’’ to meet 

the new standard level; and (2) product 

efficiencies above the standard level 

under consideration would not be 

affected. Under the ‘‘shift’’ scenario, 

DOE reorients the distribution above the 

new minimum energy conservation 

standard. 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to use 

the ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario and solicited 

comments from stakeholders on 

whether such an approach is 

appropriate for EPSs. Delta-Q 

Technologies agreed with DOE’s 

methodology (Delta-Q Technologies, No. 

113 at p. 1). PTI commented that the 

ENERGY STAR program could provide 

an incentive for products to improve 

their efficiency (PTI, No 133 at p. 5). 

Because the ENERGY STAR program for 

EPS ended, it will not impact the EPS 

market going forward; therefore, DOE 

has maintained the ‘‘roll-up’’ approach 

for the final rule. For further details 

about the forecasted efficiency 

distributions, see chapter 9 of the TSD. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The National Impact Analysis (NIA) 

assesses the national energy savings 

(NES) and the net present value (NPV) 

of total consumer costs and savings that 

would be expected to result from new 

and amended standards at specific 

efficiency levels. DOE calculates the 

NES and NPV based on projections of 

annual unit shipments, along with the 

annual energy consumption and total 

installed cost data from the energy use 

and LCC analyses. DOE projected the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

product costs, and NPV of net consumer 

benefits for products sold over a 30-year 

period—from 2015 through 2044. 

CEA commented that it is 

unreasonable for DOE to project 

shipments, energy savings, and 

emissions reductions over a 30-year 

period. Product lifecycles for many of 

the covered products are typically 

measured in months, so it can be 

difficult to make projections years out. 

(CEA, No. 106 at p. 9) Although the 30- 

year analysis period is longer than the 

average lifetime of EPSs, DOE estimates 

that the considered standard levels 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7887 

42Series ID PCU33521–33521; http://

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

analyzed will transform the market to 

higher energy efficiencies than in the 

base-case, therefore realizing energy and 

emission savings throughout the 

analysis period. Further, DOE has 

conducted a sensitivity analysis that 

projects NIA results out over nine years 

of shipments instead of 30 years. Results 

of this sensitivity analysis are available 

in section V.B.3 of this notice. 

As in the LCC analysis, DOE evaluates 

the national impacts of new and 

amended standards by comparing basecase projections with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projections 

characterize energy use and consumer 

costs for each product class in the 

absence of new and amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE compares 

these projections with projections 

characterizing the market for each 

product class if DOE adopted new and 

amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. 

To make the analysis more accessible 

and transparent to all interested parties, 

DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet 

model to calculate the energy savings 

and the national consumer costs and 

savings from each TSL. The TSD and 

other documentation that DOE provides 

during the rulemaking help explain the 

models and how to use them, and 

interested parties can review DOE’s 

analyses by changing various input 

quantities within the spreadsheet. The 

NIA spreadsheet model uses average 

values as inputs (as opposed to 

probability distributions). 

For today’s final rule, the NIA used 

projections of energy prices from the 

AEO 2013 Reference case. In addition, 

DOE analyzed scenarios that used 

inputs from the AEO 2013 High 

Economic Growth, and Low Economic 

Growth cases. These cases have higher 

or lower energy price trends compared 

to the Reference case. NIA results based 

on these cases are presented in 

appendix 10A to the TSD. 

Table IV–13 summarizes the inputs 

and key assumptions DOE used in the 

NIA. Discussion of these inputs and 

changes follows the table. See chapter 

10 of the TSD for further details. 

TABLE IV–13—SUMMARY OF INPUTS, SOURCES AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs NOPR description Changes for Final rule 

Base Year Shipments ........................................ Annual shipments from Market Assessment ... No change. 

Shipment Growth Rate ....................................... 0.75 percent annually, equal to population 

growth.

No change. 

Lifetimes ............................................................. EPS lifetime is equal to the lifetime of the 

end-use product it powers.

No changes in methodology. Product Class 

lifetimes were revised based on removal of 

Product Class C–1 and medical products. 

Base Year Efficiencies ....................................... From Market Assessment ................................ No change. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ................... Efficiency distributions remain unchanged 

throughout the forecast period.

No change. 

Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ........... ‘‘Roll-up’’ scenario ............................................ No change. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Annual shipment weighted-average marginal 

energy consumption values for each product class.

No change in the methodology. Inputs to the 

calculation were revised based on removal 

of Product Class C–1 and medical products. 

Improvement Cost per Unit ................................ From the Engineering Analysis ........................ No change. 

Markups .............................................................. From Markups Analysis ................................... No change. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit .............. Assumed to be zero ......................................... No change. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... AEO 2010 projections (to 2035) and extrapolation for 2044 and beyond.Updated to AEO 2013. 

Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion Factor ..... Based on AEO 2010 ........................................ Updated to AEO 2013. 

Present Year ...................................................... 2011 ................................................................. 2013. 

Discount Rate ..................................................... 3% and 7% real ............................................... No change. 

Compliance Date of Standard (Start of Analysis 

Period).

2013 ................................................................. 2015. 

1. Product Price Trends 

As noted in section IV.F.6, DOE 

assumed no change in EPS pricing over 

the 2015–2044 period in the reference 

case. AHAM commented that it opposes 

the use of ‘‘experience curves’’ to 

project price trends and agreed that DOE 

should not use that approach. (AHAM, 

No. 124 at p. 9) In contrast, PG&E and 

SDG&E supported DOE’s consideration 

of falling costs in its NIA sensitivity and 

recommended that falling costs be 

incorporated into the reference case, 

given past declines in the costs of 

electronic products. (PG&E and SDG&E, 

No. 163 at p. 1) PSMA agreed, stating 

that while improvements to overall 

power supply efficiency do entail cost 

premiums, these premiums are often 

reduced as volumes increase and 

manufacturing technologies improve. 

(PSMA, No. 147 at p. 2) 

As discussed in section IV.G.1, it is 

difficult to predict the consumer 

electronics market far in advance. To 

derive a price trend for EPSs, DOE did 

not have any historical shipments data 

or sufficient historical Producer Price 

Index (PPI) data for small electrical 

appliance manufacturing from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).42

Therefore, DOE also examined a 

projection based on the price indexes 

that were projected for AEO2012. DOE 

performed an exponential fit on two 

deflated projected price indexes that 

may include the products that EPSs are 

components of: information equipment 

(Chained price index—investment in 

non-residential equipment and 

software—information equipment), and 

consumer durables (Chained price 

index—other durable goods). However, 

DOE believes that these indexes are too 

broad to accurately capture the trend for 

EPSs. Furthermore, most EPSs are 

unlike typical consumer products in 

that they are typically not purchased 

independently by consumers. Instead, 

they are similar to other commodities 

and typically bundled with end-use 

products. 

Given the above considerations, DOE 

decided to use a constant price 

assumption as the default price factor 

index to project future EPSs prices in 

2015. While a more conservative 

method, following this approach helped 

ensure that DOE did not understate the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7888 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

43OMB Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, 

‘‘Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs. 

Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

memoranda/m03–21.html. 

incremental impact of standards on the 

consumer purchase price. Thus, DOE’s 

product prices forecast for the LCC and 

PBP analysis for the final rule’s analysis 

were held constant for each efficiency 

level in each product class. DOE also 

conducted a sensitivity analysis using 

alternative price trends based on AEO 

indexes. These price trends, and the 

NPV results from the associated 

sensitivity cases, are described in 

Appendix 10–B of the TSD. 

2. Unit Energy Consumption and 

Savings 

DOE uses the efficiency distributions 

for the base case along with the annual 

unit energy consumption values to 

estimate shipment-weighted average 

unit energy consumption under the base 

and standards cases, which are then 

compared against one another to yield 

unit energy savings values for each CSL. 

To better evaluate actual energy 

savings when calculating unit energy 

consumption for a product class at a 

given CSL, DOE considered only those 

units that would actually be at that CSL 

and did not consider any units already 

at higher CSLs. That is, the shipmentweighted average unit energy 

consumption for a CSL ignored any 

shipments from higher CSLs. 

In addition, when calculating unit 

energy consumption for a product class, 

DOE used marginal energy 

consumption, which was taken to be the 

consumption of a unit above the 

minimum energy consumption possible 

for that unit. Marginal unit energy 

consumption values were calculated by 

subtracting the unit energy consumption 

values for the highest considered CSL 

from the unit energy consumption 

values at each CSL. 

As discussed in section IV.G.3, DOE 

assumes that energy efficiency will not 

improve after 2015 in the base case. 

Therefore, the projected UEC values in 

the analysis, as well as the unit energy 

savings values, do not vary over time. 

Per the roll-up scenario, the analysis 

assumes that manufacturers would 

respond to a standard by improving the 

efficiency of underperforming products 

but not those that already meet or 

exceed the standard. 

DOE received no comments on its 

methodology for calculating unit energy 

consumption and savings in the NOPR 

and maintained its methodology in the 

final rule. For further details on the 

calculation of unit energy savings for 

the NIA, see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

3. Unit Costs 

DOE uses the efficiency distributions 

for the base case along with the unit cost 

values to estimate shipment-weighted 

average unit costs under the base and 

standards cases, which are then 

compared against one another to give 

incremental unit cost values for each 

CSL. In addition, when calculating unit 

costs for a product class, DOE uses that 

product class’s marginal costs—the 

costs of a given unit above the minimum 

costs for that unit. 

DOE received no comments on its 

methodology for calculating unit costs 

in the NOPR and maintained its 

methodology in the final rule. For 

further details on the calculation of unit 

costs for the NIA, see chapter 10 of the 

TSD. 

4. Repair and Maintenance Cost per 

Unit 

In the preliminary analysis and 

NOPR, DOE did not consider repair or 

maintenance costs for EPSs because the 

vast majority cannot be repaired and do 

not require any maintenance. DOE 

received no comments on this approach, 

and maintained this assumption for the 

Final Rule. 

5. Energy Prices 

While the focus of this rulemaking is 

on consumer products, typically found 

in the residential sector, DOE is aware 

that many products that employ EPSs 

are located within commercial 

buildings. Given this fact, the NOPR 

analysis relied on calculated energy cost 

savings from such products using 

commercial sector electricity rates, 

which are lower in value than 

residential sector rates. DOE used this 

approach so as to not overstate energy 

cost savings in calculating the NIA. 

In order to determine the energy usage 

split between the residential and 

commercial sector, DOE first separated 

products into residential-use and 

commercial-use categories. Then, for 

each product class, using shipment 

values for 2015, average lifetimes, and 

base-case unit energy consumption 

values, DOE calculated the approximate 

annual energy use split between the two 

sectors. DOE applied the resulting ratio 

to the electricity pricing to obtain a 

sector-weighted energy price for each 

product class. This ratio was held 

constant throughout the period of 

analysis. 

DOE received no comments on its 

methodology for calculating energy 

costs in the NOPR and maintained its 

approach for the final rule. For further 

details on the determination of energy 

prices for the NIA, see chapter 10 of the 

TSD. 

6. National Energy Savings 

For each year in the forecast period, 

DOE calculates the national energy 

savings for each standard level by 

multiplying the shipments of EPSs 

affected by the energy conservation 

standards by the per-unit annual energy 

savings. Cumulative energy savings are 

the sum of the NES for all products 

shipped during the analysis period, 

2015–2044. Site energy savings were 

converted to primary energy savings 

using annual conversion factors derived 

from the AEO 2013 version of the 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS). 

DOE has historically presented NES 

in terms of primary energy savings, as 

it did in the March 2012 NOPR. 

However, on August 17, 2012, DOE 

published a statement of amended 

policy in which it determined that all 

rulemakings that reach the NOPR stage 

after that date must present energy 

savings in terms of full-fuel-cycle (FFC). 

77 FR 49701. Because the NOPR was 

published prior to August 17, 2012, 

DOE is maintaining its use of primary 

energy savings today’s final rule; 

however, it has also decided to present 

FFC savings as a sensitivity analysis in 

order to be consistent with DOE’s 

current standard practice. The FFC 

multipliers that were applied and the 

results of that analysis are described in 

appendix 10–C of the TSD. 

For further details about the 

calculation of national energy savings, 

see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

7. Discount Rates 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers of EPSs are: 

(1) Total increased product cost, (2) total 

annual savings in operating costs, and 

(3) a discount factor. For each standards 

case, DOE calculated net savings each 

year as total savings in operating costs 

less total increases in product costs, 

relative to the base case. DOE calculated 

operating cost savings over the life of 

each product shipped from 2015 

through 2044. 

DOE multiplied the net savings in 

future years by a discount factor to 

determine their present value. DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.43 The 7-percent real 

value is an estimate of the average 

before-tax rate of return to private 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7889 

capital in the U.S. economy. The 3- 

percent real value represents the 

‘‘societal rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

For further details about the 

calculation of net present value, see 

chapter 10 of the TSD. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impacts of 

new and amended standards, DOE 

evaluates the impacts on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers (e.g., lowincome households or small businesses) 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. In the NOPR, 

DOE analyzed four consumer subgroups 

of interest—low-income consumers, 

small businesses, top marginal 

electricity price tier consumers, and 

consumers of specific applications 

within a representative unit or product 

class. For each subgroup, DOE 

considered variations on the standard 

inputs. 

DOE defined low-income consumers 

as residential consumers with incomes 

at or below the poverty line, as defined 

by the U.S. Census Bureau. DOE found 

that these consumers face electricity 

prices that are 0.2 cents per kWh lower, 

on average, than the prices faced by 

consumers above the poverty line. 

For small businesses, DOE analyzed 

the potential impacts of standards by 

conducting the analysis with different 

discount rates, as small businesses do 

not have the same access to capital as 

larger businesses. DOE estimated that 

for businesses purchasing EPSs, small 

companies have an average discount 

rate that is 4.5 percent higher than the 

industry average. 

For top tier marginal electricity price 

consumers, DOE researched inclined 

marginal block rates for the residential 

and commercial sectors. DOE found that 

top tier marginal rates for general usage 

in the residential and commercial 

sectors were $0.306 and $0.221, 

respectively. 

Lastly, for the application-specific 

subgroup, DOE used the inputs from 

each application for lifetime, markups, 

market efficiency distribution, and UEC 

to calculate LCC and PBP results. DOE’s 

subgroup analysis for consumers of 

specific applications considered the 

LCC impacts of each application within 

a representative unit or product class. 

This approach allowed DOE to consider 

the LCC impacts of individual 

applications when choosing the 

proposed standard level, regardless of 

the application’s weighting in the 

calculation of average impacts. The 

impacts of the standard on the cost of 

the EPS as a percentage of the 

application’s total purchase price are 

not relevant to DOE’s LCC analysis. The 

LCC considers the incremental cost 

between different standard levels. DOE 

used the cost of the EPS component, not 

the final price of the application, in the 

LCC. Therefore, a $2,000 and $20 

product are assumed to have the same 

cost for a EPS (e.g., $5) if they are within 

the same CSL of the same representative 

unit or product class. The applicationspecific subgroup analyses represent an 

estimate of the marginal impacts of 

standards on consumers of each 

application within a representative unit 

or product class. 

DOE received no comments on its 

methodology for the Consumer 

Subgroup Analysis in the NOPR and 

maintained its approach in the final 

rule. Chapter 11 of the TSD contains 

further information on the LCC analyses 

for all subgroups. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE conducted a manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA) on EPSs to 

estimate the financial impact of new 

and amended energy on this industry. 

The MIA is both a quantitative and 

qualitative analysis. The quantitative 

part of the MIA relies on the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM), an industry cash flow model 

customized for EPSs covered in this 

rulemaking. The key MIA output is 

industry net present value, or INPV. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash 

flows using standard accounting 

principles and to compare the difference 

in INPV between the base case and 

various TSLs (the standards case). The 

difference in INPV between the base and 

standards cases represents the financial 

impact of the new and amended 

standards on EPS manufacturers. 

Different sets of assumptions (scenarios) 

produce different results. 

DOE calculated the MIA impacts of 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards by creating a GRIM for EPS 

ODMs. In the GRIM, DOE grouped 

similarly impacted products to better 

analyze the effects that the new and 

amended standards will have on each 

industry. DOE presented the EPS 

impacts by grouping the four 

representative units in product class B 

(with output powers at 2.5, 18, 60, and 

120 Watts) to characterize the results for 

product classes B, C, D, and E. The 

results for product classes X and H are 

presented separately. 

DOE outlined its complete 

methodology for the MIA in the NOPR. 

The complete MIA is presented in 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD. 

1. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Through the MIA, DOE attempts to 

model how changes in efficiency impact 

the manufacturer production costs 

(MPCs). The MPCs and the 

corresponding prices for which fully 

assembled EPSs are sold to OEMs 

(frequently referred to as ‘‘factory costs’’ 

in the industry) are major factors in 

industry value calculations. DOE’s 

MPCs include the cost of components 

(including integrated circuits), other 

direct materials of the finalized EPS, the 

labor to assemble all parts, factory 

overhead, and all other costs borne by 

the ODM to fully assemble the EPS. 

In the engineering analysis presented 

in the NOPR, DOE developed and 

subsequently analyzed cost-efficiency 

curves for four representative units in 

product class B and for representative 

units in product classes X and H. The 

MPCs are calculated in one of two ways, 

depending on product class. For the 

product class B representative units, 

DOE based its MPCs on information 

gathered during manufacturer 

interviews. In these interviews, 

manufacturers described the costs they 

would have to incur to achieve 

increases in energy efficiency. For 

product classes X and H, the 

engineering analysis created a complete 

bill of materials (BOM) derived from the 

disassembly of the units selected for 

teardown; BOM costs were used to 

calculate MPCs. 

NRDC commented that DOE 

overestimated the incremental MPCs in 

the NOPR analysis for EPSs, particularly 

product class B EPSs, which caused 

DOE to overstate the negative financial 

impacts reported in the NOPR MIA. 

(NRDC, No. 114 at p. 21) NRDC, 

however, did not give any specific data 

supporting its view. DOE derived its 

MPCs from either tear-downs or direct 

manufacturer input. These estimates 

represent the most accurate and 

comprehensive cost data available to 

DOE. Accordingly, DOE continued to 

rely on these data in conducting its 

analysis and did not alter the MPCs for 

the final rule. 

2. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

New and amended standards will 

cause manufacturers to incur one-time 

conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance with those 

standards. For the NOPR MIA, DOE 

classified these one-time conversion 

costs into two major groups: (1) Product 

conversion costs and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are one-time investments in 

research, development, testing, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7890 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

marketing, and other non-capitalized 

costs focused on making product 

designs comply with the new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

one-time investments in property, plant, 

and equipment to adapt or change 

existing production facilities so that 

new product designs can be fabricated 

and assembled. 

In response to the NOPR, NEMA 

commented that the results of the 

manufacturer impact analysis did not 

accurately reflect the impact to industry, 

as the cost of compliance was 

consistently underestimated resulting in 

an overestimation of net savings. NEMA 

stated the cost to manufacturers fails to 

include safety and reliability testing and 

these testing processes are required to 

ensure long term efficiency gains. 

(NEMA, No. 134 at p. 2) DOE notes that 

it included the cost of safety and 

reliability testing as well as certification 

in the estimated product conversion 

costs for the NOPR. See chapter 12 of 

the TSD for a complete explanation of 

the conversion costs. Since NEMA did 

not provide any data on the costs of 

safety and reliability testing, DOE was 

unable to verify if the safety and 

reliability testing cost used in the NOPR 

were underestimated. 

NRDC commented that DOE 

overestimated the conversion costs 

associated with EPS standards, which 

caused the MIA results to overstate the 

negative financial impacts on EPS 

manufacturers. NRDC believes the 

changes required by the selected 

standards for EPSs are simple and will 

only require limited capital conversion 

costs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 21) In 

contrast, Dell commented that DOE may 

have underestimated the conversion 

costs related to production. (Dell, Pub. 

Mtg. Transcript, No. 104 at p. 242) After 

reviewing the EPS conversion costs, 

DOE agrees it overstated the capital and 

product conversion costs because it 

overestimated the length of the product 

design cycle of the covered products. In 

the final rule MIA, DOE corrected its 

estimate of the length of the product 

design cycle, which reduced the EPS 

conversion costs by approximately 50 

percent from the initial estimated 

conversion costs in the NOPR. See 

chapter 12 of this final rule TSD for 

further explanation. 

3. Markup Scenarios 

For the NOPR, DOE modeled two 

standards case markup scenarios in the 

MIA: (1) A flat markup scenario and (2) 

a preservation of operating profit 

scenario. These two scenarios represent 

the uncertainty regarding the potential 

impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of new and amended 

energy conservation standards. Each 

scenario leads to different markup 

values, which when applied to the 

inputted MPCs, result in varying 

revenue and cash flow impacts. 

In the flat markup scenario, DOE 

assumes that the cost of goods sold for 

each product is marked up by a flat 

percentage to cover SG&A expenses, 

R&D expenses, and profit. In the 

standards case for the flat markup 

scenario, manufacturers are able to fully 

pass the additional costs that are caused 

by standards through to their customers. 

DOE also modeled the preservation of 

operating profit scenario in the NOPR 

MIA. During manufacturer interviews, 

ODMs and OEMs indicated that the 

electronics industry is extremely price 

sensitive throughout the distribution 

chain. Because of the highly competitive 

market, this scenario models the case in 

which ODMs’ higher production costs 

for more efficient EPSs cannot be fully 

passed through to OEMs. In this 

scenario, the manufacturer markups are 

lowered such that manufacturers are 

only able to maintain the base case total 

operating profit in absolute dollars in 

the standards case, despite higher 

product costs and required investment. 

DOE implemented this scenario in the 

GRIM by lowering the manufacturer 

markups at each TSL to yield 

approximately the same earnings before 

interest and taxes in both the base case 

and standards cases in the year after the 

compliance date for the new and 

amended standards. This scenario 

generally represents the lower-bound of 

industry profitability following new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

because in this scenario higher 

production costs and the investments 

required to comply with new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

do not yield additional operating profit. 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

ECOVA commented that DOE should 

consider a markup scenario where 

manufacturers can pass on the one-time 

conversion costs associated with new 

and amended energy standards. 

(ECOVA, Pub. Mtg. Transcript, No. 104 

at p. 294) Based on the EPS market 

pricing conditions described during 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

concludes that the markup scenario 

recommended by ECOVA is realistic 

and should be incorporated into the 

MIA. Therefore, DOE examined the 

INPV impacts of a return on invested 

capital markup scenario in the final rule 

MIA as a result of ECOVA’s comment. 

The results of this markup scenario are 

displayed in section V.B.2.a, along with 

the rest of the manufacturer INPV 

results. 

In the return on invested capital 

scenario, manufacturers earn the same 

percentage return on total capital in 

both the base case and standards cases 

in the year after the compliance date for 

the new and amended standards. This 

scenario models the situation in which 

manufacturers maintain a similar level 

of profitability from the investments 

required by new and amended energy 

conservation standards as they do from 

their current business operations. In the 

standards case under this scenario, 

manufacturers have higher net operating 

profit after taxes, but also have greater 

working capital and investment 

requirements. This scenario generally 

represents the upper-bound of industry 

profitability following new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

4. Impacts on Small Businesses 

Cobra Electronics commented that it, 

and other small companies, were 

excluded from DOE’s small business 

impacts analysis. Cobra stated that 

while it does not manufacture EPSs, it 

manufactures products that use EPSs 

and should have been included in 

DOE’s small business impacts analysis. 

(Cobra Electronics, No. 130 at p. 2) DOE 

took into consideration only small 

businesses that either are directly 

impacted by these standards and/or 

manufacture EPSs domestically and 

found none that would be adversely 

affected by this rule. DOE believes that 

electronics manufacturers, like Cobra, 

that source their EPSs from other 

companies should not be directly 

examined, as the EPSs are simply one 

component of their products. DOE does 

not expect there to be any direct 

employment impacts on these 

application manufacturers that do not 

manufacture or design the EPSs used 

with their applications. Further, if these 

companies are not involved in the 

redesign or manufacturing of the EPS, 

they will not have significant 

conversion costs associated with this 

EPS standard. DOE acknowledges that 

the application price could increase due 

to the use of more expensive EPSs, 

which could negatively affect small 

business application manufacturers 

using EPSs. These price increases are 

the subject of the markups analysis, 

which is discussed in section IV.D 

above. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7891 

44On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted 

certiorari in EME Homer City. EPA v. EME Homer 

City Generation, LP, 133 S.Ct. 2857 (2013), and has 

heard oral arguments on this matter on December 

10, 2013. DOE notes that while the outcome of this 

litigation may eventually have an impact on the 

manner in which DOE calculates emissions 

impacts, accounting for those changes in the 

context of the present rule would be speculative 

given the uncertainty of the case’s outcome at this 

time. 

(SO2), and mercury (Hg) from potential 

energy conservation standards for EPSs. 

In addition, for today’s final rule, DOE 

developed a sensitivity analysis that 

estimates additional emissions impacts 

in production activities (extracting, 

processing, and transporting fuels) that 

provide the energy inputs to power 

plants. These are referred to as 

‘‘upstream’’ emissions. Together, these 

emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle 

(FFC). In accordance with DOE’s FFC 

Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 (Aug. 

18, 2011)), the FFC analysis includes 

impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) 

and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which 

are recognized as greenhouse gases. The 

results of this FFC sensitivity analysis 

are described in appendix 13A of the 

final rule TSD. 

DOE conducted the emissions 

analysis using emissions factors that 

were derived from data in EIA’s Annual 

Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013), 

supplemented by data from other 

sources. DOE developed separate 

emissions factors for power sector 

emissions and upstream emissions. The 

method that DOE used to derive 

emissions factors is described in chapter 

13 of the final rule TSD. 

EIA prepares the Annual Energy 

Outlook using the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS). Each annual 

version of NEMS incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO 2013 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, for 

which implementing regulations were 

available as of December 31, 2012. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern states and DC were also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), 

which created an allowance-based 

trading program that operates along 

with the Title IV program. CAIR was 

remanded to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit but it remained in 

effect. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On July 6, 2011 EPA issued a 

replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 

2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision 

to vacate CSAPR. See EME Homer City 

Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 

(D.C. Cir. 2012). The court ordered EPA 

to continue administering CAIR.44 The 

AEO 2013 emissions factors used for 

today’s NOPR assumes that CAIR 

remains a binding regulation through 

2040. 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, any excess 

SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the adoption of an efficiency 

standard could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by 

any regulated EGU. In past rulemakings, 

DOE recognized that there was 

uncertainty about the effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that negligible 

reductions in power sector SO2

emissions would occur as a result of 

standards. 

Beginning in 2015, however, SO2

emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) for power plants, which were 

announced by EPA on December 21, 

2011. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the 

final MATS rule, EPA established a 

standard for hydrogen chloride as a 

surrogate for acid gas hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP), and also established a 

standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) 

as an alternative equivalent surrogate 

standard for acid gas HAP. The same 

controls are used to reduce HAP and 

non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions 

will be reduced as a result of the control 

technologies installed on coal-fired 

power plants to comply with the MATS 

requirements for acid gas. AEO 2013 

assumes that, in order to continue 

operating, coal plants must have either 

flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent 

injection systems installed by 2015. 

Both technologies, which are used to 

reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce 

SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS 

shows a reduction in SO2 emissions 

when electricity demand decreases (e.g., 

as a result of energy efficiency 

standards). Emissions will be far below 

the cap established by CAIR, so it is 

unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand would be needed or 

used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. 

Therefore, DOE believes that efficiency 

standards will reduce SO2 emissions in 

2015 and beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia. Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those States covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the States 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in 

today’s final rule for these States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

estimated mercury emissions reduction 

using emissions factors based on AEO 

2013, which incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of the 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

are expected to result from each of the 

TSLs considered. In order to make this 

calculation similar to the calculation of 

the NPV of consumer benefits, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

products shipped in the forecast period 

for each TSL. This section summarizes 

the basis for the monetary values used 

for each of these emissions reduction 

estimates and presents the values 

considered in this rulemaking. 

For today’s final rule, DOE did not 

receive any comments on this section of 

the analysis and retained the same 

approach as in the NOPR. DOE is 

relying on a set of values for the social 

cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed 

by an interagency process. A summary 

of the basis for these values is provided 

below, and a more detailed description 

of the methodologies used is provided 

as an appendix to chapter 14 of the final 

rule TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7892 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

45See Average Fuel Economy Standards 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 

74 FR 14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 (Oct. 2008) 

(Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) 

(Last accessed December 2012). 

46See Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) (Proposed 

Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015 at 3–58 (June 2008) (Available at: http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) (Last accessed 

December 2012). 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC 

value is meant to reflect the value of 

damages in the United States resulting 

from a unit change in carbon dioxide 

emissions, while a global SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages 

worldwide. 

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. The 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented 

here is to allow agencies to incorporate 

the monetized social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions into costbenefit analyses of regulatory actions 

that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ impacts 

on cumulative global emissions. The 

estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed the SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on 

a regular basis to consider public 

comments, explore the technical 

literature in relevant fields, and discuss 

key model inputs and assumptions. The 

main objective of this process was to 

develop a range of SCC values using a 

defensible set of input assumptions 

grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key 

uncertainties and model differences 

transparently and consistently inform 

the range of SCC estimates used in the 

rulemaking process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of serious challenges. A recent 

report from the National Research 

Council points out that any assessment 

will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about: (1) Future emissions of 

greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of past 

and future emissions on the climate 

system; (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment; and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. Most Federal 

regulatory actions can be expected to 

have marginal impacts on global 

emissions. For such policies, the agency 

can estimate the benefits from reduced 

emissions in any future year by 

multiplying the change in emissions in 

that year by the SCC value appropriate 

for that year. The net present value of 

the benefits can then be calculated by 

multiplying the future benefits by an 

appropriate discount factor and 

summing across all affected years. This 

approach assumes that the marginal 

damages from increased emissions are 

constant for small departures from the 

baseline emissions path, an 

approximation that is reasonable for 

policies that have effects on emissions 

that are small relative to cumulative 

global carbon dioxide emissions. For 

policies that have a large (non-marginal) 

impact on global cumulative emissions, 

there is a separate question of whether 

the SCC is an appropriate tool for 

calculating the benefits of reduced 

emissions. This concern is not 

applicable to this rulemaking, however. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

Economic analyses for Federal 

regulations have used a wide range of 

values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. In the final model year 2011 

CAFE rule, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per metric 

ton of CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of 

$33 per metric ton of CO2 for 2007 

emission reductions (in 2007$), 

increasing both values at 2.4 percent per 

year. DOT also included a sensitivity 

analysis at $80 per metric ton of CO2.45

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

metric ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 

emission reductions (with a range of $0– 

$14 for sensitivity analysis), also 

increasing at 2.4 percent per year.46 A 

regulation for packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps finalized by DOE in October 

of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of 

$0 to $20 per metric ton CO2 for 2007 

emission reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 

58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008). In addition, 

EPA’s 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Regulating Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act 

identified what it described as ‘‘very 

preliminary’’ SCC estimates subject to 

revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). 

EPA’s global mean values were $68 and 

$40 per metric ton CO2 for discount 

rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 

percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 

emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible 

method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided 

climate change damages from reduced 

CO2 emissions. The interagency group 

did not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represented 

the first sustained interagency effort 

within the U.S. government to develop 

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. 

The results of this preliminary effort 

were presented in several proposed and 

final rules. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7893 

47Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government, February 2010. http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf. 

48Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates. 

Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored 

the technical literature in relevant 

fields. The interagency group relied on 

three integrated assessment models 

commonly used to estimate the SCC: the 

FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These 

models are frequently cited in the peerreviewed literature and were used in the 

last assessment of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Each model 

was given equal weight in the SCC 

values that were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses.47 Three sets of values are 

based on the average SCC from three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent. The fourth set, which 

represents the 95th-percentile SCC 

estimate across all three models at a 3- 

percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts 

from climate change further out in the 

tails of the SCC distribution. The values 

grow in real terms over time. 

Additionally, the interagency group 

determined that a range of values from 

7 percent to 23 percent should be used 

to adjust the global SCC to calculate 

domestic effects, although preference is 

given to consideration of the global 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. 

Table IV–14 presents the values in the 

2010 interagency group report, which is 

reproduced in appendix 14–A of the 

final rule TSD. 

TABLE IV–14—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

The SCC values used for today’s final 

rule were generated using the most 

recent versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.48 Table IV–15 shows the 

updated sets of SCC estimates in fiveyear increments from 2010 to 2050. 

Appendix 14–B of the final rule TSD 

provides the full set of values. The 

central value that emerges is the average 

SCC across models at a 3-percent 

discount rate. However, for purposes of 

capturing the uncertainties involved in 

regulatory impact analysis, the 

interagency group emphasizes the 

importance of including all four sets of 

SCC values. 

TABLE IV–15—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7894 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

49For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on 

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities, Washington, DC. 

50For more information on NEMS, refer to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration documentation. A useful summary 

is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2003, DOE/EIA–0581(2003) (March, 2003). 

51 DOE/EIA approves use of the name NEMS to 

describe only an official version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

this analysis entails some minor code modifications 

and the model is run under various policy scenarios 

that are variations on DOE/EIA assumptions, DOE 

refers to it by the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ (‘‘BT’’ is DOE’s 

Building Technologies Program, under whose aegis 

this work has been performed). 

TABLE IV–15—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050—Continued 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of concerns and 

problems that should be addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

The interagency group intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

those estimates to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions from today’s 

rule, DOE used the values from the 2013 

interagency report, adjusted to 2012$ 

using the Gross Domestic Product price 

deflator. For each of the four cases 

specified, the values used for emissions 

in 2015 were $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and 

$117 per metric ton CO2 avoided (values 

expressed in 2012$). DOE derived 

values after 2050 using the relevant 

growth rate for the 2040–2050 period in 

the interagency update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. To calculate a present value 

of the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the TSLs it considered. 

As noted above, DOE has taken into 

account how new and amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOx emissions in those 22 states not 

affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX emissions 

reductions resulting from each of the 

TSLs considered for today’s final rule 

based on estimates found in the relevant 

scientific literature. Available estimates 

suggest a very wide range of monetary 

values per ton of NOx from stationary 

sources, ranging from $468 to $4,809 per 

ton (in 2012$).49 DOE calculated 

monetary benefits using a medium value 

for NOX emissions of $2,639 per short 

ton (in 2012$), and real discount rates 

of 3 percent and 7 percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. It has not 

included this monetization in the 

current analysis. 

The California Investor-Owned 

Utilities and ECOVA asked that DOE 

take into account the decreased cost of 

complying with sulfur dioxide emission 

regulations as a result of standards. (CA 

IOUs, No. 138 at p. 19; ECOVA, Pub. 

Mtg. Transcript, No. 104 at pp. 292–293) 

As discussed in section IV.L, under the 

MATS, SO2 emissions are expected to 

be far below the cap established by 

CSAPR. Thus, it is unlikely that the 

reduction in electricity demand 

resulting from energy efficiency 

standards would have any impact on the 

cost of complying with the regulations. 

For the final rule, DOE retained the 

same approach as in the NOPR for 

monetizing the emissions reductions 

from new and amended standards. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the 

adoption of new and amended energy 

conservation standards. In the utility 

impact analysis, DOE analyzes the 

changes in electric installed capacity 

and generation that result for each trial 

standard level. The utility impact 

analysis uses a variant of NEMS,50

which is a public domain, multisectored, partial equilibrium model of 

the U.S. energy sector. DOE uses a 

variant of this model, referred to as 

NEMS–BT,51 to account for selected 

utility impacts of new and amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE’s 

analysis consists of a comparison 

between model results for the most 

recent AEO Reference Case and for cases 

in which energy use is decremented to 

reflect the impact of potential standards. 

The energy savings inputs associated 

with each TSL come from the NIA. For 

today’s final rule, DOE did not receive 

any comments on this section of the 

analysis and retained the same approach 

as in the NOPR. Chapter 15 of the TSD 

describes the utility impact analysis in 

further detail. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

Employment impacts from new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

include direct and indirect impacts. 

Direct employment impacts are any 

changes in the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the equipment subject 

to standards; the MIA addresses those 

impacts. Indirect employment impacts 

are changes in national employment 

that occur due to the shift in 

expenditures and capital investment 

caused by the purchase and operation of 

more efficient equipment. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the jobs created or eliminated 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7895 

52U.S. EPA, ‘‘International Efficiency Marking 

Protocol for External Power Supplies,’’ October 

2008, available at Docket No. 62. 

in the national economy, other than in 

the manufacturing sector being 

regulated, due to: (1) Reduced spending 

by end users on energy; (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the 

utility industry; (3) increased consumer 

spending on the purchase of new 

equipment; and (4) the effects of those 

three factors throughout the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment may increase 

because of shifts in economic activity 

resulting from amended standards. 

For the standard levels considered in 

the final rule, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET). 

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among the 

187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. 

benchmark table, specially aggregated to 

the 187 sectors most relevant to 

industrial, commercial, and residential 

building energy use. DOE notes that 

ImSET is not a general equilibrium 

forecasting model, and understands the 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run. For the final rule, 

DOE used ImSET only to estimate shortterm employment impacts. 

The California Energy Commission 

disagreed with DOE’s NOPR 

employment impact analysis, which 

shows that increasing energy efficiency 

causes U.S. job losses. (California 

Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 33) 

The California Energy Commission’s 

argument was based on an assumed 

ratio of jobs in the consumer goods 

sector versus the utility sector. The 

California Energy Commission, 

however, did not provide independent 

data sources or references to support the 

assumption. As a result, DOE is 

maintaining its current methodology to 

estimate employment impacts. 

DOE’s employment impact analysis is 

designed to estimate indirect national 

job creation or elimination resulting 

from possible standards, due to 

reallocation of the associated 

expenditures for purchasing and 

operating EPSs. There are two cost 

changes to consider: reduction in energy 

costs from use of the product due to 

efficiency increase, and change in 

manufacturing cost to improve product 

energy efficiency. 

Energy cost savings bring a reduction 

in spending on energy, which has a 

negative impact on employment in 

electric utilities and directly related 

sectors. Energy cost savings are assumed 

to be redirected according to average 

U.S. spending patterns; this increase in 

spending on all other goods and services 

leads to an increase in employment in 

all other sectors. As electric utilities are 

generally capital-intensive compared to 

the average of all sectors, the aggregate 

employment impact of energy cost 

savings is positive. 

In contrast, with increased 

manufacturing costs, which lead to 

higher purchase prices, funds will be 

diverted from general spending, 

increasing spending in product 

manufacturing and directly related 

sectors. In the case of EPSs, almost all 

manufacturing takes place in other 

countries, so money flows from general 

spending (reducing employment across 

all U.S. sectors) to pay for these 

imported products. However, a portion 

of the money spent on imports returns 

to the U.S. when U.S. exports are sold. 

Because U.S. exports tend to be less 

labor-intensive than the average of 

general spending on goods and services, 

the aggregate impact of increased 

manufacturing cost is expected to be a 

decrease in U.S. employment. 

The employment analysis in the 

NOPR TSD only presented impacts in 

the short run (2015 and 2020). In the 

short run, the effect from increased cost 

is larger than the effect from energy cost 

savings, which accrue over time. For 

this reason, DOE kept the same 

approach when developing the 

employment impact analysis for the 

final rule. Although DOE does not 

currently quantify long-run employment 

impacts due to modeling uncertainty, 

DOE anticipates that net labor market 

impacts will in general be negligible 

over time. 

O. Marking Requirements 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5), Congress 

granted DOE with the authority to 

establish labeling or marking 

requirements for a number of consumer 

products, including EPSs. DOE notes 

that EISA 2007 set standards for Class 

A EPSs and required that all Class A 

EPSs shall be clearly and permanently 

marked in accordance with the 

‘‘International Efficiency Marking 

Protocol for External Power Supplies’’ 

(the ‘‘Marking Protocol’’).52 (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(3)(C)) 

The Marking Protocol, developed by 

the EPA in consultation with 

stakeholders both within and outside 

the United States, was originally 

designed in 2005 and updated in 2008 

to meet the needs of those voluntary and 

regulatory programs in place at those 

times. In particular, the Marking 

Protocol defines efficiency mark ‘‘IV’’, 

which corresponds to the current 

Federal standard for Class A EPSs, and 

efficiency mark ‘‘V’’, which corresponds 

to ENERGY STAR version 2.0. (The 

ENERGY STAR program for EPSs ended 

on December 31, 2010.) In the 2008 

version of the Marking Protocol, these 

marks apply only to single-voltage EPSs 

with nameplate output power less than 

250 watts, but not to multiple-voltage or 

high-power EPSs. In the March 2012 

NOPR, DOE indicated that it would 

work with the EPA and other 

stakeholder groups to update the 

Marking Protocol to accommodate any 

revised EPS standards it might adopt. 

Brother, Panasonic, and ITI urged 

DOE to ensure that its marking 

requirements for EPSs align with the 

International Efficiency Marking 

Protocol. (Brother International, No. 111 

at p. 3; ITI, No. 131 at p. 8; Panasonic, 

No. 120 at p. 4) 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7896 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

53 ‘‘Marking.— Any class A external power 

supply manufactured on or after the later of July 1, 

2008 or December 19, 2007, shall be clearly and 

permanently marked in accordance with the 

External Power Supply International Efficiency 

Marking Protocol, as referenced in the ‘Energy Star 

Program Requirements for Single Voltage External 

AC–DC and AC–AC Power Supplies, version 1.1’ 

published by the Environmental Protection 

Agency.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(C). The ENERGY 

STAR Program Requirements v. 1.1 were 

announced March 1, 2006. The initial version of the 

International Efficiency Marking Protocol for EPSs 

was in effect at that time. 

54The CCMS is an online system that permits 

manufacturers and third party representatives to 

create, submit, and track certification reports using 

product-specific templates. See https://

www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms. 

As noted above, EISA 2007 required 

all Class A EPSs to be clearly and 

permanently marked in accordance with 

the Marking Protocol—but without any 

reference to a particular version of that 

protocol.53 In the absence of any 

definitive language pointing to the use 

of a particular version of the Marking 

Protocol, in DOE’s view, the statute 

contemplated that the marking 

requirements would evolve over time as 

needed. This view is supported by the 

authority Congress gave to DOE in 

setting any necessary labeling 

requirements for EPSs. See 42 U.S.C. 

6294(a)(5). Consistent with this 

authority, and the statutory foundation 

laid out by Congress, DOE proposed to 

revise the marking requirements for 

EPSs to accommodate the standards 

being adopted today. In particular, 

applying the already existing 

nomenclature pattern set out by the 

Marking Protocol, DOE proposed a new 

mark (Roman numeral VI) to denote 

compliance with the proposed 

standards. DOE has revised the Marking 

Protocol in collaboration with the EPA 

and those stakeholder groups around 

the world that contributed to earlier 

versions. 

DOE received comments requesting 

that it not extend marking requirements 

to products for which such 

requirements do not already exist. 

AHAM opposed adding a marking 

requirement for EPSs that do not already 

have such requirements, noting that the 

usual purposes for markings—informing 

consumers, differentiating products in 

instances where there are two standards, 

and differentiating products that use a 

voluntary standard—are not served 

here. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 8) AHAM 

and ITI commented that DOE can verify 

compliance with the standard by 

reviewing the certification and 

compliance statements manufacturers 

are already required to file with DOE, 

obviating the need for marking 

requirements, which impose additional 

cost and production burdens on 

manufacturers and result in marks that, 

ITI added, ‘‘consumers are likely to 

ignore anyway.’’ (Id.; ITI, No. 131 at p. 

8) Panasonic and AHAM commented 

that efficiency marking requirements for 

battery chargers and EPSs are 

unnecessary and superfluous as the 

covered products must comply with 

standards as a condition of sale in the 

United States. (Panasonic, No. 120 at 

pp. 3, 4; AHAM, No. 124 at p. 8) 

DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers are required to certify 

compliance with standards using the 

Compliance Certification Management 

System (CCMS) 54 and that, in general, 

markings have limited effectiveness in 

ensuring compliance. At the same time, 

DOE recognizes that manufacturers and 

retailers could use efficiency markings 

or labels to help ensure that the end-use 

consumer products they sell comply 

with all applicable standards. However, 

DOE has not received requests from 

such parties requesting additional 

marking requirements for such 

purposes. As a result, with the 

exception of multiple-voltage and highpower EPSs, DOE is not extending 

marking requirements to additional 

products at this time. 

DOE also received comments from 

several manufacturers and industry 

associations requesting that it permit 

any required marking to be placed on 

the product’s package or within 

accompanying documentation in lieu of 

placing the marking on the product 

itself. Specific reasons cited included: 

(1) Limited space on battery chargers 

and EPSs for additional markings, as 

devices have become smaller in recent 

years and must already have certain 

existing markings; (2) wide array of 

products of different types and sizes; (3) 

package labeling is less costly than 

marking the product itself; (4) package 

labeling is more visible than product 

markings at point of sale and at 

customs; (5) manufacturers would prefer 

to have this flexibility for product 

design and branding reasons; (6) such 

flexibility would be consistent with 

recent government directives on 

regulatory reform; and (7) product 

markings consume additional energy 

and resources. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 9; 

Apple, No. 177 at p. 1; CEA, No. 137 at 

pp. 7–8; California Energy Commission, 

No. 199 at p. 12; Motorola Mobility, No. 

121 at p. 16; Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 4; 

Philips, No. 128 at p. 6; TIA, No. 127 at 

p. 9) 

In today’s final rule, DOE is amending 

its marking requirements to permit any 

required marking to be placed on the 

product’s package or accompanying 

documentation in lieu of the product 

itself. DOE believes that the most 

compelling reason for permitting more 

flexibility in the placement of the label 

is that the efficiency of the EPS can still 

be ascertained at any point in the 

distribution chain by reviewing the 

packaging or accompanying 

documentation, while allowing 

manufacturers to choose where to place 

the marking. 

Several interested parties commented 

on the proposed marking requirements 

for EPSs in product class N. ITI and 

Panasonic commented that they see no 

need to require a marking on products 

for which standards do not apply and 

for which there is no provision in the 

Marking Protocol, i.e., non-Class A EPSs 

in product class N. (ITI, No. 131 at p. 

9; Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 4) Panasonic 

further expressed concern that requiring 

both a Roman numeral and the letter 

‘‘N’’ on Class A EPSs in product class 

N would create confusion and 

recommended requiring only the Roman 

numeral [as required at present]. 

(Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 4) Lastly, 

AHAM, NRDC, Panasonic, and Wahl 

Clipper all suggested ways of 

simplifying the marking scheme DOE 

proposed for EPSs in product class N. 

(AHAM, No. 124 at p. 8; NRDC, No. 114 

at p. 17; Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 4; 

Wahl Clipper, Pub. Mtg. Transcript, No. 

104 at p. 265) 

In light of these comments, including 

those requesting that DOE not extend 

marking requirements to products for 

which such requirements do not already 

exist, DOE is not establishing a special 

mark for EPSs for product class N in 

today’s final rule. For those EPSs that 

are already subject to standards (Class A 

EPSs), the Roman numeral marking 

requirement continues in force. For 

those EPSs in product class N not 

subject to standards (non-Class A EPSs), 

no efficiency marking is required. 

However, to ensure consistency and 

avoid confusion, DOE is extending the 

efficiency marking requirement only to 

those non-Class A EPSs subject to the 

direct operation EPS standards being 

adopted today, i.e., multiple-voltage and 

high-power EPSs and the EPSs for 

certain battery operated motorized 

applications. Thus, the marking will be 

required for all devices that are subject 

to EPS standards and not required for 

any devices that are not subject to EPS 

standards. 

Congress amended EPCA to exclude 

EPSs for certain security and life safety 

equipment from the no-load mode 

efficiency standards. Public Law 111– 

360 (Jan. 4, 2011) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(3)). The exclusion applies to 

AC–AC EPSs manufactured before July 

1, 2017, that have (1) nameplate output 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7897 

55Note that the failure to add such a mark to the 

Marking Protocol or create a DOE requirement for 

such a mark has no bearing on the ability of such 

products to qualify for the exemption. 

of 20 watts or more and (2) are certified 

as being designed to be connected to a 

security or life safety alarm or 

surveillance system component (as 

defined in the law). The provision also 

requires that once an EPS International 

Efficiency Marking Protocol is 

established to identify these types of 

EPSs, they should be permanently 

labeled with the appropriate mark. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E). Currently, no such 

distinguishing mark exists within the 

Marking Protocol. Once this mark is 

established, an EPS would have to be so 

marked to qualify for the exemption.55

The CEC commented that ‘‘DOE 

should not add EPS security marking to 

the international marking protocol,’’ 

adding that efficiency markings are 

intended to identify ‘‘holistically’’ 

efficient products, covering all modes of 

operation. The CEC continued, ‘‘If DOE 

decides to adopt a marking for these 

products, the Energy Commission 

recommends using an ‘‘S’’ in a circle 

with a sunset date of July 1, 2017. This 

requirement should be added only to 10 

CFR 430 and not to the international 

marking protocol.’’ (California Energy 

Commission, No. 117 at p. 30) NRDC 

recommended that DOE adopt a 

marking for these products that consists 

of the letter ‘‘S’’ followed by a hyphen 

and the appropriate Roman numeral 

marking, e.g., ‘‘S–VI’’. (NRDC, No. 114 

at p. 17) 

In light of the exemption’s limited 

scope and duration, the uncertainty 

about which mark to use, concerns over 

requiring the mark, and the irrelevance 

of a DOE marking requirement to 

determining eligibility for the 

exemption, DOE has decided not to 

adopt a special marking for the EPSs in 

question. 

Table IV–16 summarizes the EPS 

marking requirements. The revised 

Marking Protocol (version 3.0) has been 

added to the docket for this rulemaking 

and can be downloaded from Docket 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005 on 

Regulations.gov. 

TABLE IV–16 EPS MARKING REQUIREMENTS BY PRODUCT CLASS* 

Class ID Product class Marking requirement 

B ................... Direct Operation, AC–DC, Basic-Voltage ................................... Roman numeral VI. 

C ................... Direct Operation, AC–DC, Low-Voltage (except those with 

nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate 

output current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps that 

charge the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor 

operated).

Roman numeral VI. 

C-1 ................ Direct Operation, AC–DC, Low-Voltage with nameplate output 

voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current 

greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps and charges the 

battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated.

No marking requirement. 

D ................... Direct Operation, AC–AC, Basic-Voltage ................................... Roman numeral VI. 

E ................... Direct Operation, AC–AC, Low-Voltage ..................................... Roman numeral VI. 

X ................... Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage .............................................. Roman numeral VI. 

H ................... Direct Operation, High-Power ..................................................... Roman numeral VI. 

N ................... Indirect Operation ....................................................................... Class A: Roman numeral IV or higher. 

Non-Class A: No marking requirement. 

* An EPS not subject to standards need not be marked. 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standards Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of multiple TSLs for the 

products that are the subject of today’s 

rule. A description of each TSL DOE 

analyzed is provided below. DOE 

attempted to limit the number of TSLs 

considered for the NOPR by excluding 

efficiency levels that do not exhibit 

significantly different economic and/or 

engineering characteristics from the 

efficiency levels already selected as a 

TSL. While the NOPR presents only the 

results for those efficiency levels in TSL 

combinations, the TSD contains a fuller 

discussion and includes results for all 

efficiency levels that DOE examined. 

Table V–1 presents the TSLs for EPSs 

and the corresponding efficiency levels. 

DOE chose to analyze product class B 

directly and scale the results from the 

engineering analysis to product classes 

C, D, and E. As a result, the TSLs for 

these three product classes correspond 

to the TSLs for product class B. DOE 

created separate TSLs for the multiplevoltage (product class X) and highpower (product class H) EPSs to 

determine their standards. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.016</GPH>
7898 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

56 DOE notes that it uses the median payback 

period to reduce the effect of outliers on the data. 

This method, however, does not eliminate the 

outliers from the data. 

For product class B, DOE examined 

three TSLs corresponding to each 

candidate standard level of efficiency 

developed in the engineering analysis. 

TSL 1 is an intermediate level of 

performance above ENERGY STAR, 

which offers the greatest consumer NPV. 

TSL 2 is equivalent to the best-in-market 

CSL and represents an incremental rise 

in energy savings over TSL 1. TSL 3 is 

the max-tech level and corresponds to 

the greatest NES. 

For product class X, DOE examined 

three TSLs above the baseline. TSL 1 is 

an intermediate level of performance 

above the baseline. TSL 2 is equivalent 

to the best-in-market CSL and 

corresponds to the maximum consumer 

NPV. TSL 3 is the max-tech level and 

corresponds to the greatest NES. 

For product class H, DOE examined 

three TSLs above the baseline. TSL 1 

corresponds to an intermediate level of 

efficiency. TSL 2 is the scaled best-inmarket CSL and corresponds to the 

maximum consumer NPV. TSL 3 is the 

scaled max-tech level, which provides 

the highest NES. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and the PBP associated with new 

and amended standards. The LCC, 

which is also separately specified as one 

of the seven factors to be considered in 

determining the economic justification 

for a new and amended standard (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)), is discussed 

in the following section. For consumers 

in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

net present value from a national 

perspective of the economic impacts on 

consumers over the forecast period used 

in a particular rulemaking. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

As in the NOPR phase, DOE 

calculated the average LCC savings 

relative to the base case market 

efficiency distribution for each 

representative unit and product class. 

DOE’s projections indicate that a new 

standard would affect different EPS 

consumers differently, depending on the 

market segment to which they belong 

and their usage characteristics. Section 

IV.F discusses the inputs used for 

calculating the LCC and PBP. Inputs 

used for calculating the LCC include 

total installed costs, annual energy 

savings, electricity rates, electricity 

price trends, product lifetime, and 

discount rates. 

The key outputs of the LCC analysis 

are average LCC savings for each 

product class for each considered 

efficiency level, relative to the base case, 

as well as a probability distribution of 

LCC reduction or increase. The LCC 

analysis also estimates, for each product 

class or representative unit, the fraction 

of consumers for which the LCC will 

either decrease (net benefit), or increase 

(net cost), or exhibit no change (no 

impact) relative to the base case 

forecast. No impacts occur when the 

product efficiencies of the base case 

forecast already equal or exceed the 

considered efficiency level. EPSs are 

used in applications that can have a 

wide range of operating hours. EPSs that 

are used more frequently will tend to 

have a larger net LCC benefit than those 

that are used less frequently because of 

the greater operating cost savings. 

Another key output of the LCC 

analysis is the median payback period at 

each TSL. DOE presents the median 

payback period rather than the mean 

payback period because it is more 

robust in the presence of outliers in the 

data.56 These outliers skew the mean 

payback period calculation but have 

little effect on the median payback 

period calculation. A small change in 

operating costs, which derive the 

denominator of the payback period 

calculation, can sometimes result in a 

very large payback period, which skews 

the mean payback period calculation. 

For example, consider a sample of PBPs 

of 2, 2, 2, and 20 years, where 20 years 

is an outlier. The mean PBP would 

return a value of 6.5 years, whereas the 

median PBP would return a value of 2 

years. Therefore, DOE considers the 

median payback period, which is not 

skewed by occasional outliers. Table 

V–2 shows the results for the 

representative units and product classes 

analyzed for EPSs. Additional detail for 

these results, including frequency plots 

of the distributions of life-cycle costs 

and payback periods, are available in 

chapter 8 of the TSD. 

For EPS product class B (basicvoltage, AC–DC, direct operation EPSs), 

each representative unit has a unique 

value for LCC savings and median PBP. 

The 2.5W and 60W representative units 

both have positive LCC savings at all 

TSLs considered. The 18W and 120W 

representative units have positive LCC 

savings through TSL 2, but turn negative 

at TSL 3. 

The non-Class A EPSs have varying 

LCC results at each TSL. The 203W 

multiple-voltage unit (product class X) 

has positive LCC savings through TSL 2. 

DOE notes that for this product class, 

the LCC savings remain largely the same 

for TSL 1 and 2 because the difference 

in LCC is approximately $0.01, and 95 

percent of this market consists of 

purchased products that are already at 

TSL 1. Therefore, the effects are largely 

from the movement of the 5 percent of 

the market up from the baseline. The 

345W high-power unit (product class H) 

has positive LCC savings for each TSL. 

This projection is largely attributable to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7899 

the installed price of the baseline unit, 

a linear switching device, which is more 

costly than higher efficiency switchmode power devices, so as consumers 

move to higher efficiencies, the 

purchase price actually decreases, 

resulting in savings. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

Certain consumer subgroups may be 

disproportionately affected by 

standards. DOE performed LCC 

subgroup analyses in this final rule for 

low-income consumers, small 

businesses, top tier marginal electricity 

price consumers, and consumers of 

specific applications. See section IV.F of 

this final rule for a review of the inputs 

to the LCC analysis. The following 

discussion presents the most significant 

results from the LCC subgroup analysis. 

Low-Income Consumers 

For low-income consumers, the LCC 

impacts and payback periods are 

different than for the general 

population. This subgroup considers 

only the residential sector, and uses an 

adjusted electricity price from the 

reference case scenario. DOE found that 

low-income consumers below the 

poverty line typically paid electricity 

prices that were 0.2 cents per kWh 

lower than the general population. To 

account for this difference, DOE 

adjusted electricity prices by a factor of 

0.9814 to derive electricity prices for 

this subgroup. Table V–3 shows the LCC 

impacts and payback periods for lowincome consumers purchasing EPSs. 

The LCC savings and PBPs of lowincome consumers is similar to that of 

the total population of consumers. In 

general, low-income consumers 

experience slightly reduced LCC 

savings, particularly in product classes 

dominated by residential applications. 

However, product classes with a large 

proportion of commercial applications 

experience less of an effect under the 

low-income consumer scenario, which 

is specific to the residential sector, and 

sometimes have greater LCC savings 

than the reference case results. None of 

the changes in LCC savings move a TSL 

from positive to negative LCC savings, 

or vice versa. 

Small Businesses 

For small business consumers, the 

LCC impacts and payback periods are 

different than for the general 

population. This subgroup considers 

only the commercial sector, and uses an 

adjusted discount rate from the 

reference case scenario. DOE found that 

small businesses typically have a cost of 

capital that is 4.36 percent higher than 

the industry average, which was applied 

to the discount rate for the small 

business consumer subgroup. 

The small business consumer 

subgroup LCC results are not directly 

comparable to the reference case LCC 

results because this subgroup only 

considers commercial applications. In 

the reference case scenario, the LCC 

results are strongly influenced by the 

presence of residential applications, 

which typically comprise the majority 

of application shipments. For product 

class B, the LCC savings become 

negative at TSL 2 and TSL 3 for the 

2.5W representative unit under the 

small business scenario, and at TSL3 for 

the 60W unit. None of the savings for 

other representative units change from 

positive to negative, or vice versa. This 

observation indicates that small 

business consumers would experience 

similar LCC impacts as the general 

population. 

Table V–4 shows the LCC impacts and 

payback periods for small businesses 

purchasing EPSs. DOE did not identify 

any commercial applications for nonClass A EPSs, and, consequently, did 

not evaluate these products as part of 

the small business consumer subgroup 

analysis. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.018</GPH> ER10FE14.019</GPH>
7900 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Top Tier Marginal Electricity Price 

Consumers 

For top tier marginal electricity price 

consumers, the LCC impacts and 

payback periods are different than for 

the general population. The analysis for 

this subgroup considers a weightedaverage of the residential and 

commercial sectors and uses an adjusted 

electricity price from the reference case 

scenario. DOE used an upper tier 

inclined marginal block rate for the 

electricity price in the residential and 

commercial sectors, resulting in a price 

of $0.326 and $0.236 per kWh, 

respectively. 

Table V–5 shows the LCC impacts and 

payback periods for top tier marginal 

electricity price consumers purchasing 

EPSs. 

Consumers in the top tier marginal 

electricity price bracket experience 

greater LCC savings than those in the 

reference case scenario. This result 

occurs because these consumers pay 

more for their electricity than other 

consumers, and, therefore, experience 

greater savings when using products 

that are more energy efficient. This 

subgroup analysis increased the LCC 

savings of most of the representative 

units significantly. For the 203W 

multiple-voltage representative unit, the 

LCC savings at TSL 3 flipped from 

negative to positive. In product class B, 

for the 60W and 120W representative 

units, the savings also flipped from 

negative to positive. All other savings 

remained positive. 

Consumers of Specific Applications 

DOE performed an LCC and PBP 

analysis on every application within 

each representative unit and product 

class. This subgroup analysis used the 

application’s specific inputs for lifetime, 

markups, base case market efficiency 

distribution, and UEC. Many 

applications in each representative unit 

or product class experienced LCC 

impacts and payback periods that were 

different from the average results across 

the representative unit or product class. 

Because of the large number of 

applications considered in the analysis, 

some of which span multiple 

representative units or product classes, 

DOE did not present applicationspecific LCC results here. Detailed 

results on each application are available 

in chapter 11 of the TSD. 

For product class B, the applicationspecific LCC results indicate that most 

applications will experience similar 

levels of LCC savings as the 

representative unit’s average LCC 

savings. The 2.5W representative unit 

has positive LCC savings for each TSL, 

but specific applications, such as 

wireless headphones (among others), 

experience negative LCC savings. 

Similarly, DOE’s projections for the 

18W representative unit has projected 

positive LCC savings at TSL 1 and TSL 

2, but other applications using EPSs, 

such as portable DVD players and 

camcorders, have negative savings. For 

the 60W representative unit, all 

applications follow the shipmentweighted average trends, except for at 

TSL 3, where two applications have 

negative LCC savings. For the 120W 

representative unit, all applications 

follow the shipment-weighted averages. 

See chapter 11 of the TSD for further 

detail. 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section IV.F.15, EPCA 

provides a rebuttable presumption that 

a given standard is economically 

justified if the increased purchase cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard. However, DOE routinely 

conducts a full economic analysis that 

considers the full range of impacts, 

including those to the customer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment, 

as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis 

serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate 

definitively the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). Therefore, if the 

rebuttable presumption is not met, DOE 

may justify its standard on another 

basis. 

For EPSs, energy savings calculations 

in the LCC and PBP analyses used both 

the relevant test procedures as well as 

the relevant usage profiles. Because 

DOE calculated payback periods using a 

methodology consistent with the 

rebuttable presumption test for EPSs in 

the LCC and payback period analyses, 

DOE did not perform a stand-alone 

rebuttable presumption analysis, as it 

was already embodied in the LCC and 

PBP analyses. 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

For the MIA in the March 2012 NOPR, 

DOE used changes in INPV to compare 

the direct financial impacts of different 

TSLs on manufacturers. DOE used the 

GRIM to compare the INPV of the base 

case (no new and amended energy 

conservation standards) to that of each 

TSL. The INPV is the sum of all net cash 

flows discounted by the industry’s cost 

of capital (discount rate) to the base 

year. The difference in INPV between 

the base case and the standards case 

estimates the economic impact of 

implementing that standard on the 

entire EPS industry. For today’s final 

rule, DOE continues to use the 

methodology presented in the NOPR 

and in section IV.J of the final rule. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

DOE modeled three different markup 

scenarios using a different set of markup 

assumptions for each scenario after an 

energy conservation standard goes into 

effect. These assumptions produce the 

bounds of a range of market responses 

that DOE anticipates could occur in the 

standards case. Each markup scenario 

results in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding INPV at each TSL. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7901 

The first scenario DOE modeled is a 

flat markup scenario, or a preservation 

of gross margin markup scenario. The 

flat markup scenario assumes that in the 

standards case manufacturers would be 

able to pass the higher production costs 

required to manufacture more efficient 

products on to their customers. DOE 

also modeled the return on invested 

capital markup scenario. In this markup 

scenario, manufacturers maintain a 

similar level of profitability from the 

investments required by new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

as they do from their current business 

operations. To assess the higher (more 

severe) end of the range of potential 

impacts, DOE modeled the preservation 

of operating profit markup scenario. In 

this scenario, markups in the standards 

case are lowered such that 

manufacturers are only able to maintain 

their total base case operating profit in 

absolute dollars, despite higher product 

costs and investment. DOE used the 

main NIA shipment scenario for all MIA 

scenarios that were used to characterize 

the potential INPV impacts. 

Product Classes B, C, D, and E 

Table V–6 through Table V–8 present 

the projected results for product classes 

B, C, D, and E under the flat, return on 

invested capital, and preservation of 

operating profit markup scenarios. DOE 

examined four representative units in 

product class B and scaled the results to 

product classes C, D, and E using the 

most appropriate representative unit for 

each product class. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.021</GPH>
7902 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

57For a mapping of CSLs to TSLs, please see 

Table V–1. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$6.1 million to 

¥$32.3 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥2.6 percent to ¥14.1 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

89.5 percent to $1.4 million, compared 

to the base case value of $13.6 million 

in the year leading up to when the 

amended energy conservation standards 

would need to be met. 

At TSL 1, manufacturers of product 

class B, C, D, and E EPSs face a slight 

to moderate loss in INPV. For these 

product classes, the required 

efficiencies at TSL 1 correspond to an 

intermediate level above the ENERGY 

STAR 2.0 levels but below the best in 

market efficiencies. The conversion 

costs are a major contribution of the 

decrease in INPV because the vast 

majority of the product class B, C, D, 

and E EPS shipments fall below CSL 

2.57 Manufacturers will incur product 

and capital conversion costs of 

approximately $30.7 million at TSL 1. 

In 2015, approximately 84 percent of 

product class B, C, D, and E shipments 

are projected to fall below the proposed 

amended energy conservation 

standards. In addition, 94 percent of the 

products for the 2.5W representative 

unit are projected to fall below the 

proposed efficiency standard, and 

would likely require more substantial 

conversion costs because meeting the 

efficiency standard would require 2.5W 

representative units to switch from 

linear to switch mode technology. This 

change would increase the conversion 

costs for these 2.5W representative 

units, which account for approximately 

half of all the product class B, C, D, and 

E shipments. 

At TSL 1, the MPC increases 45 

percent for the 2.5W representative 

units (a representative unit for product 

class B and all shipments of product 

classes C and E), 5 percent for the 18 

Watt representative units (a 

representative unit for product class B 

and all shipments of product class D), 

2 percent for the 60W representative 

units, and 3 percent for the 120W 

representative units over the baseline. 

The conversion costs are significant 

enough to cause a slight negative 

industry impact even if manufacturers 

are able to maintain a similar return on 

their invested capital, as they do in the 

return on invest capital scenario. 

Impacts are more significant under the 

preservation of operating profit scenario 

because under this scenario 

manufacturers would be unable to pass 

on the full increase in the product cost 

to OEMs. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$7.8 million to 

¥$44.5 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥3.4 percent to ¥19.4 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

105.2 percent to ¥$0.7 million, 

compared to the base case value of $13.6 

million in the year before the 

compliance date. 

TSL 2 represents the best-in-market 

efficiencies for product class B, C, D, 

and E EPSs. The increase in conversion 

costs and production costs at TSL 2 

make the INPV impacts slightly worse 

than TSL 1. The product conversion 

costs increase by $2.5 million and the 

capital conversion costs increase by $2.8 

million from TSL 1 because now even 

more products, 95 percent, fall below 

the efficiency requirements at TSL 2 

than at TSL 1. Also, at TSL 2, the MPC 

increases 60 percent for the 2.5W 

representative units (a representative 

unit for product class B and all 

shipments of product classes C and E), 

18 percent for the 18 Watt 

representative units (this is a 

representative unit for product class B 

and all shipments of product class D), 

5 percent for the 60W representative 

units, and 4 percent for the 120W 

representative units over the baseline. 

However, the similar conversion costs 

and relatively minor additional 

incremental conversion costs make the 

industry impacts at TSL 2 similar to 

those at TSL 1. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from $40.0 million to 

¥$82.7 million, or a change in INPV of 

17.4 percent to ¥36.1 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

110.5 percent to ¥$1.4 million, 

compared to the base case value of $13.6 

million in the year before the 

compliance date. 

TSL 3 represents the max-tech CSL for 

product class B, C, D, and E EPSs. At 

TSL 3, DOE modeled a wide range of 

industry impacts because the very large 

increases in per-unit production costs 

lead to a wide range of potential impacts 

depending on who captures the 

additional value in the distribution 

chain. No existing product meets the 

efficiency requirements at TSL 3. 

However, since most of the products at 

TSL 2 also fall below the standard level, 

there is only a slight difference between 

the conversion costs at TSL 2 and TSL 

3. The different INPV impacts occur due 

to the large changes in incremental 

MPCs at the max-tech level. At TSL 3, 

the MPC increases 69 percent for the 

2.5W representative unit (this is a 

representative unit for product class B 

and all shipments for product classes C 

and E), 80 percent for the 18 Watt 

representative units (this is a 

representative unit for product class B 

and all shipments for product class D), 

24 percent for the 60W representative 

units, and 53 percent for the 120W 

representative units over the baseline. If 

manufacturers are able to fully pass on 

these costs to OEMs (the flat markup 

scenario), the increase in cash flow from 

operations is enough to overcome the 

conversion costs to meet the max-tech 

level and INPV increases moderately. 

However, if the manufacturers are 

unable to pass on these costs and only 

maintain the current operating profit 

(the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario), there is a significant 

negative impact on INPV, because 

substantial increases in working capital 

drain operating cash flow. The 

conversion costs associated with 

switching the entire market, the large 

increase in incremental MPCs, and the 

extreme pressure from OEMs to keep 

product prices down make it more 

likely that ODMs will not be able to 

fully pass on these costs to OEMs and 

the ODMs would face a substantial loss 

instead of a moderate gain in INPV at 

TSL 3. 

Product Class X 

Table V–9 through Table V–11 

present the projected results for product 

class X under the flat, return on 

invested capital, and preservation of 

operating profit markup scenarios. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7903 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$0.1 million to 

¥$0.4 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥0.2 percent to ¥1.0 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

5.5 percent to $2.5 million, compared to 

the base case value of $2.7 million in 

the year before the compliance date. 

At TSL 1, manufacturers of product 

class X face a very slight decline in 

INPV because most of the market 

already meets TSL 1. The total 

conversion costs are approximately $0.4 

million. Conversion costs are low 

because 95 percent of the products 

already meet the TSL 1 efficiency 

requirements. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥$1.3 million to 

¥$6.6 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥3.0 percent to ¥14.8 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

109.3 percent to ¥$0.3 million, 

compared to the base case value of $2.7 

million in the year leading up to when 

the new energy conservation standards 

would need to be met. 

At TSL 2, manufacturers range from a 

slight to moderate decrease in INPV. 

DOE estimates that manufacturers will 

incur total product and capital 

conversion costs of $7.3 million at TSL 

2. The conversion costs increase at TSL 

2 because the entire market falls below 

the efficiency requirements at TSL 2. 

Also, the total impacts are driven by the 

incremental MPCs at TSL 2. At TSL 2, 

the MPC increases 16 percent over the 

baseline. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from $1.7 million to 

¥$11.8 million, or a change in INPV of 

3.8 percent to ¥26.4 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

109.3 percent to ¥$0.3 million, 

compared to the base case value of $2.7 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.022</GPH>
7904 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

million in the year before the 

compliance date. 

TSL 3 impacts range from a slight 

increase to a moderate decrease in 

INPV. As with TSL 2, the entire market 

falls below the required efficiency at 

TSL 3 and total industry conversion 

costs are also $7.3 million. However, the 

main difference at TSL 3 is the increase 

in the MPC. At TSL 3, the MPC 

increases 46 percent over the baseline. 

If the ODMs can pass on the higher 

price of these products to the OEMs at 

TSL 3, the gains from the additional 

revenue are outweighed by conversion 

costs, so manufacturers experience a 

slight increase in INPV. However, if 

ODMs cannot pass on these higher 

MPCs to OEMs, manufacturer 

experience a moderate loss in INPV. The 

conversion costs associated with 

switching the entire market, the large 

increase in incremental MPCs, and the 

extreme pressure from OEMs to keep 

product prices down make it more 

likely that ODMs will not be able to 

fully pass on these costs to OEMs and 

the ODMs would face a moderate loss 

instead of a slight gain in INPV at TSL 

3. 

Product Class H 

Table V–12 through Table V–14 

present the projected results for product 

class H under the flat, return on 

invested capital, and preservation of 

operating profit markup scenarios. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from less than ¥$10,000 

to ¥$0.03 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥3.3 percent to ¥26.4 percent. At 

this level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7905 

145.7 percent to less than ¥$10,000, 

compared to the base case value of $0.01 

million in the year before the 

compliance date. 

At TSL 1, manufacturers of product 

class H EPSs face a slight to significant 

loss in industry value. The base case 

industry value of $110,000 is low and 

since DOE estimates that total 

conversion costs at TSL 1 would be 

approximately $20,000, the conversion 

costs represent a substantial portion of 

total industry value. The conversion 

costs are high relative to the base case 

INPV because the entire market in 2015 

is projected to fall below an efficiency 

standard set at TSL 1. This means that 

all products in product class H would 

have to be redesigned to meet the 

efficiency level at TSL 1, leading to total 

conversion costs that are large relative 

to the base case industry value. In 

addition, the MPC at TSL 1 declines by 

21 percent compared to the baseline 

since the switching technology that 

would be required to meet this 

efficiency level is less costly to 

manufacture than improving the 

efficiency of baseline products that 

continue to use linear technology. This 

situation results in a lower MSP and 

lower revenues for manufacturers of 

baseline products, which exacerbates 

the impacts on INPV from new energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from less than ¥$10,000 

to ¥$0.03 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥3.4 percent to ¥24.9 percent. At 

this level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

145.7 percent to less than ¥10,000, 

compared to the base case value of $0.01 

million in the year before the 

compliance date. 

The impacts on INPV at TSL 2 are 

similar to TSL 1. The conversion costs 

are the same since the entire market in 

2015 would fall below the required 

efficiency at both TSL 1 and TSL 2. 

Also, the MPC is projected to decrease 

by 19 percent at TSL 2 compared to the 

baseline, which is similar to the 21 

percent decrease at TSL 1. Overall, the 

similar conversion costs and lower 

industry revenue for the minimally 

compliant products make the INPV 

impacts at TSL 2 similar to TSL 1. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from ¥0.01 million to 

¥$0.03 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥4.9 percent to ¥28.2 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

145.7 percent to less than ¥10,000, 

compared to the base case value of $0.01 

million in the year leading up to when 

the new energy conservation standards 

would need to be met. 

Impacts on INPV range from slightly 

to substantially negative at TSL 3. As 

with TSL 1 and TSL 2, the entire market 

falls below the required efficiency and 

the total industry conversion costs 

estimated by DOE remain at $20,000. 

However, the MPC increases 8 percent 

at TSL 3 relative to the estimated cost 

of the baseline unit and changes the 

possible impacts on INPV at TSL 3. If 

ODMs can maintain a similar return on 

invested capital in TSL 3 as in the base 

case, like manufacturers do in the return 

on invested capital scenario, the decline 

in INPV is only slightly negative. 

However, if the ODMs cannot fully pass 

on the higher MPCs to OEMs, as would 

occur in the preservation of operating 

profit, then the loss in INPV is much 

more substantial. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

As discussed in the March 2012 

NOPR, as part of the direct employment 

impact analysis, DOE attempted to 

quantify the number of domestic 

workers involved in EPS manufacturing. 

Based on manufacturer interviews and 

DOE’s research, DOE believes that all 

major EPS ODMs are foreign owned and 

operated. DOE did identify a few 

smaller niche EPS ODMs based in the 

U.S. and attempted to contact these 

companies. All of the companies DOE 

reached indicated their EPS 

manufacturing takes place abroad. 

During manufacturer interviews, large 

manufacturers also indicated the vast 

majority, if not all, EPS production takes 

place overseas. DOE also requested 

comment in the NOPR about the 

existence of any domestic EPS 

production and did not receive any 

comments. Because DOE was unable to 

identify any EPS ODMs with domestic 

manufacturing, DOE has concluded 

there are no EPSs currently 

manufactured domestically. 

DOE also recognizes there are several 

OEMs or their domestic distributors that 

have employees in the U.S. that work on 

design, technical support, sales, 

training, certification, and other 

requirements. However, in interviews 

manufacturers generally did not expect 

any negative changes in the domestic 

employment of the design, technical 

support, or other departments of EPS 

OEMs located in the U.S. in response to 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

As discussed in the March 2012 

NOPR, DOE does not anticipate the 

standards in today’s final rule would 

adversely impact manufacturer capacity. 

EISA 2007 set a statutory compliance 

date for EPSs, and the EPS industry is 

characterized by rapid product 

development lifecycles. Therefore, DOE 

believes the compliance date in today’s 

final rule provides sufficient time for 

manufacturers to ramp up capacity to 

meet the standards for EPSs. 

d. Impacts on Manufacturer Subgroups 

As discussed in the March 2012 

NOPR, using average cost assumptions 

to develop an industry cash flow 

estimate is not adequate for assessing 

differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche equipment 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE did not identify any EPS 

manufacturer subgroups that would 

require a separate analysis in the MIA. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking, DOE identified a number of 

requirements, in addition to new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for EPSs, that manufacturers of these 

products will face for products and 

equipment they manufacture within 

approximately three years prior to and 

after the anticipated compliance date of 

the new and amended standards. DOE 

discusses these and other requirements, 

including the energy conservation 

standards that take effect beginning in 

2012, in its full cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis in chapter 12 of the 

TSD. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings for EPSs purchased in the 30- 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7906 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

58Chapter 10 of the TSD presents tables that show 

the magnitude of the energy savings discounted at 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. Discounted energy 

savings represent a policy perspective in which 

energy savings realized farther in the future are less 

significant than energy savings realized in the 

nearer term. 

year period that begins in the year of 

compliance with amended standards 

(2015–2044). The savings are measured 

over the entire lifetime of products 

purchased in the 30-year period. DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. Table V–15 presents the 

estimated energy savings for each 

considered TSL, and Table V–16 

presents the estimated FFC energy 

savings for each considered TSL. The 

approach used is further described in 

section IV.G.58

Circular A–4 requires agencies to 

present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized 

benefits and costs that show the type 

and timing of benefits and costs. 

Circular A–4 also directs agencies to 

consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and 

costs. For this rulemaking, DOE 

undertook a sensitivity analysis using 

nine rather than 30-years of product 

shipments. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of energy 

conservation standards and represents 

DOE’s standard practice. We would note 

that the review timeframe established in 

EPCA generally does not overlap with 

the product lifetime, product 

manufacturing cycles or other factors 

specific to EPSs. In particular, DOE 

notes that EPS standards may be further 

amended and require compliance 

within 9 years. However, this 

information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology for this 

rulemaking. The NES results based on a 

9-year analytical period are presented in 

Table V–17. The impacts are counted 

over the lifetime of products purchased 

in 2015–2023. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7907 

59OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

circulars_a004_a-4. 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for EPSs. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,59 DOE calculated 

the NPV using both a 7-percent and a 

3-percent real discount rate. The 7- 

percent rate is an estimate of the average 

before-tax rate of return on private 

capital in the U.S. economy, and reflects 

the returns on real estate and small 

business capital as well as corporate 

capital. This discount rate approximates 

the opportunity cost of capital in the 

private sector (OMB analysis has found 

the average rate of return on capital to 

be near this rate). The 3-percent rate 

reflects the potential effects of standards 

on private consumption (e.g., through 

higher prices for products and reduced 

purchases of energy). This rate 

represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. It can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e., 

yield on United States Treasury notes), 

which has averaged about 3 percent for 

the past 30-years. 

Table V–18 shows the consumer NPV 

results for each TSL considered for 

EPSs. In each case, the impacts cover 

the lifetime of products purchased in 

2015–2044. 

The NPV results based on this 9-year 

analytical period are presented in Table 

V–19. The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of products purchased in 2015– 

2023. As mentioned previously, this 

information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology or decision 

criteria. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.025</GPH> ER10FE14.026</GPH>
7908 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

c. Indirect Impact on Employment 

From its analysis, DOE expects energy 

conservation standards for EPSs to 

reduce energy costs for consumers and 

the resulting net savings to be redirected 

to other forms of economic activity. 

Those shifts in spending and economic 

activity could affect the demand for 

labor. As described in section IV.N, DOE 

used an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy to estimate indirect 

employment impacts of the TSLs that 

DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE understands that there are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term time frames (2015– 

2044), where these uncertainties are 

reduced. 

The results suggest that today’s 

standards are likely to have negligible 

impact on the net demand for labor in 

the economy. The net change in jobs is 

so small that it would be imperceptible 

in national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 16 of the final 

rule TSD presents detailed results. 

4. Impact on Utility and Performance of 

the Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE evaluates standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) DOE examined 

several classes of EPSs in its engineering 

analysis and used the parameters of the 

screening analysis to determine whether 

the new and amended standards would 

impact the utility or performance of the 

end-use products. Based on the results 

gathered for each of the EPS product 

classes, DOE believes that the standards 

adopted in today’s final rule will not 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

products under consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

5. Impact on Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from standards. It also directs the 

Attorney General of the United States 

(Attorney General) to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a direct final 

rule and simultaneously published 

proposed rule, together with an analysis 

of the nature and extent of the impact. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making a determination for EPS 

standards, DOE provided the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies 

of the NOPR and the TSD for review. 

DOE received no adverse comments 

from DOJ regarding the proposal. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts or costs of 

energy production. Reduced electricity 

demand due to energy conservation 

standards is also likely to reduce the 

cost of maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, chapter 15 in the final 

rule TSD presents the estimated 

reduction in generating capacity in 2044 

for the TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Energy savings from standards for 

EPSs could also produce environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table V–20 to 

Table V–23 provide DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative CO2, SO2, NOX, and Hg 

emission reductions projected to result 

from the TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking. DOE reports annual CO2, 

SO2, NOX, and Hg emission reductions 

for each TSL in chapter 13 of the final 

rule TSD. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7909 

As part of the analysis for this rule, 

DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for 

each of the TSLs considered. As 

discussed in section IV.M, DOE used 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.028</GPH>
7910 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

values for the SCC developed by an 

interagency process. The four sets of 

SCC values resulting from that process 

(expressed in 2012$) are represented by 

$11.8/metric ton (the average value from 

a distribution that uses a 5-percent 

discount rate), $39.7/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 3-percent discount rate), $61.2/

metric ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 2.5-percent 

discount rate), and $117/metric ton (the 

95th-percentile value from a 

distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate). These values correspond 

to the value of emission reductions in 

2015; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

projected magnitude of climate change 

increases. 

Table V–24 to Table V–27 present the 

global value of CO2 emission reductions 

at each TSL for EPSs. DOE calculated a 

present value of the stream of annual 

values using the same discount rate as 

was used in the studies upon which the 

dollar-per-ton values are based. DOE 

calculated domestic values as a range 

from 7 percent to 23 percent of the 

global values, and these results are 

presented in chapter 14 of the final rule 

TSD. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7911 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.029</GPH>
7912 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 

changes in the future global climate and 

the potential resulting damages to the 

world economy continues to evolve 

rapidly. Thus, any value placed on 

reducing CO2 emissions in this 

rulemaking is subject to change. DOE, 

together with other Federal agencies, 

will continue to review various 

methodologies for estimating the 

monetary value of reductions in CO2

and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 

review will consider the comments on 

this subject that are part of the public 

record for this and other rulemakings, as 

well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, 

and taking into account the uncertainty 

involved with this particular issue, DOE 

has included in this final rule the most 

recent values and analyses resulting 

from the ongoing interagency review 

process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

emissions reductions anticipated to 

result from amended standards for EPSs. 

The value that DOE used is discussed in 

section IV.L. Table V–28 to Table V–31 

present the cumulative present values 

for each TSL calculated using sevenpercent and three-percent discount 

rates. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7913 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)). DOE has not 

considered other factors in development 

of the standards in this final rule. 

8. Summary of National Economic 

Impacts 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table V–32 presents the 

NPV values that result from adding the 

estimates of the potential economic 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 

NOX emissions in each of four valuation 

scenarios to the NPV of consumer 

savings calculated for each TSL 

considered for EPSs, at both a threepercent and seven-percent discount rate. 

The CO2 values used in the columns of 

each table correspond to the four sets of 

SCC values discussed above. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.031</GPH>
7914 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and the SCC are 

performed with different methods that 

use quite different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2015–2044. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect 

the present value of future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one metric ton of CO2 in 

each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7915 

C. Conclusions 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new and amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new and 

amended standard must also ‘‘result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For today’s rulemaking, DOE 

considered the impacts of standards at 

each TSL, beginning with the max-tech 

level, to determine whether that level 

was economically justified. Where the 

max-tech level was not justified, DOE 

then considered the next most efficient 

level and undertook the same evaluation 

until it reached the highest efficiency 

level that is technologically feasible, 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader in understanding 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section summarize the 

quantitative analytical results for each 

TSL, based on the assumptions and 

methodology discussed herein. The 

efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section V.A. In addition 

to the quantitative results presented in 

the tables below, DOE also considers 

other burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard, and impacts on employment. 

Section V.B.1.b presents the estimated 

impacts of each TSL for the considered 

subgroups. DOE discusses the impacts 

on employment in external power 

supply manufacturing in section V.B.2.b 

and discusses the indirect employment 

impacts in section V.B.3.c. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial 

Standard Levels Considered for EPS 

Product Class B 

Table V–33 and Table V–34 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for product class 

B. As explained in section IV.C.5, DOE 

is extending the TSLs for product class 

B to product classes C, D, and E because 

product class B was the only one 

directly analyzed and interested parties 

supported this approach because of the 

technical similarities among these 

products. The efficiency levels 

contained in each TSL are described in 

section V.A. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7916 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7917 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency level. 

TSL 3 would save 1.2 quads of energy, 

an amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefits would be $¥0.8 billion, using 

a discount rate of 7 percent, and $¥0.7 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 62.3 million metric tons of 

CO2, 20.0 thousand tons of NOX, 108 

thousand tons of SO2, and 0.1 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 3 ranges from $476 million to 

$6,316 million. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $0.17 for 

the 2.5W unit, and $0.60 for the 60W 

unit and a loss (LCC savings decrease) 

of $0.91 for the 18W unit, and $4.95 for 

the 120W unit. The median payback 

period is 3.7 years for the 2.5W unit, 8.1 

years for the 18W unit, 3.1 years for the 

60W unit, and 8.0 years for the 120W 

unit. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 55.2 

percent for the 2.5W unit, 29.2 percent 

for the 18W unit, 65.4 percent for the 

60W unit, and 0.0 percent for the 120W 

unit. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 44.8 percent 

for the 2.5W unit, 70.8 percent for the 

18W unit, 34.7 percent for the 60W unit, 

and 100 percent for the 120W unit. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV for direct operation product 

classes B, C, D, and E as a group ranges 

from a decrease of $82.7 million to an 

increase of $40.0 million. At TSL 3, 

DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached, as DOE 

expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss 

of 36.1 percent in INPV to 

manufacturers of EPSs in these product 

classes. However, as DOE has not 

identified any domestic manufacturers 

of direct operation EPSs, it does not 

project any immediate negative impacts 

on direct domestic jobs. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

3 for EPSs in product class B, the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the large 

increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

very large reduction in INPV outweigh 

the benefits of energy savings, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.7 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 

benefits would be $1.5 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.8 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 34.2 million metric tons of 

CO2, 11.0 thousand tons of NOX, 59.1 

thousand tons of SO2, and 0.1 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 2 ranges from $261 million to 

$3,467 million. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $0.17 for 

the 2.5W unit, $0.81 for the 18W unit, 

$0.90 for the 60W unit, and $0.79 for the 

120W unit. The median payback period 

is 3.7 years for the 2.5W unit, 2.9 years 

for the 18W unit, 1.3 years for the 60W 

unit, and 1.7 years for the 120W unit. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 55.3 percent for the 

2.5W unit, 53.6 percent for the 18W 

unit, 98.6 percent for the 60W unit, and 

94.9 percent for the 120W unit. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 42.8 percent for the 2.5W 

unit, 35.3 percent for the 18W unit, 0.0 

percent for the 60W unit, and 2.2 

percent for the 120W unit. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV for product classes B, C, D, and E 

as a group ranges from a decrease of 

$44.5 million to a decrease of $7.8 

million. DOE recognizes the risk of large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached, as DOE 

expects, TSL 2 could result in a net loss 

of 19.4 percent in INPV to 

manufacturers of EPSs in these product 

classes. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.044</GPH>
7918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

2 for EPSs in product class B, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV 

of consumer benefits, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

outweigh the economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to 

the increases in product cost and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

reduction in INPV to manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis, public 

comments on the NOPR, and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the 

Secretary concludes that this TSL will 

offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

today is adopting standards at TSL 2 for 

EPSs in product class B and, by 

extension, for EPSs in product classes C, 

D, and E. The new and amended energy 

conservation standards for these EPSs, 

expressed as equations for minimum 

average active-mode efficiency and 

maximum no-load input power, are 

shown in Table V–35. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7919 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.034</GPH>
7920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Benefits and Burdens of Trial 

Standard Levels Considered for EPS 

Product Class X 

Table V–36 and Table V–37 present a 

summary of the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for multiplevoltage EPSs. The efficiency levels 

contained in each TSL are described in 

section V.A. 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency level. 

TSL 3 would save 0.14 quads of energy, 

an amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefits would be $¥0.25 billion, using 

a discount rate of 7 percent, and $¥0.32 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 7.2 million metric tons of 

CO2, 2.3 thousand tons of NOX, 12.5 

thousand tons of SO2, and 0.01 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7921 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 3 ranges from $54.2 million to $722 

million. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC savings decrease) of $2.45. 

The median payback period is 11.3 

years. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 5.0 

percent while the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 95.0 

percent. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $11.8 

million to an increase of $1.7 million. 

At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk of 

very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the high range of impacts is reached, as 

DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net 

loss of 26.4 percent in INPV to 

manufacturers of multiple-voltage EPSs. 

However, as DOE has not identified any 

domestic manufacturers of multiplevoltage EPSs, it does not project any 

immediate negative impacts on direct 

domestic jobs. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

3 for multiple-voltage EPSs, the negative 

NPV of consumer benefits, the economic 

burden on a significant fraction of 

consumers due to the large increases in 

product cost, and the capital conversion 

costs and profit margin impacts that 

could result in a very large reduction in 

INPV outweigh the benefits of energy 

savings, emission reductions, and the 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.07 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 

benefits would be $0.24 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.44 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $2.88. The 

median payback period is 4.0 years. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 74.6 percent while the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 25.5 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 3.5 million metric tons of 

CO2, 1.1 thousand tons of NOX, 6.1 

thousand tons of SO2, and less than 0.01 

tons of Hg. The estimated monetary 

value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $26.4 

million to $353 million. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $6.6 

million to a decrease of $1.3 million. At 

TSL 2, DOE recognizes the risk of large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached, as DOE 

expects, TSL 2 could result in a net loss 

of 14.8 percent in INPV to 

manufacturers of multiple-voltage EPSs. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

2 for multiple-voltage EPSs, the benefits 

of energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions outweigh the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the 

increases in product cost and the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin 

impacts that could result in a reduction 

in INPV for manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis, public 

comments on the NOPR, and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the 

Secretary concludes that this TSL will 

offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

today is adopting standards at TSL 2 for 

multiple-voltage EPSs. The new energy 

conservation standards for these EPSs, 

expressed as equations for minimum 

average active-mode efficiency and 

maximum no-load input power, are 

shown in Table V–38. 

3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial 

Standard Levels Considered for EPS 

Product Class H 

Table V–39 and Table V–40 present a 

summary of the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for high-power 

EPSs. The efficiency levels contained in 

each TSL are described in section V.A. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.037</GPH>
7922 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency level. 

TSL 3 would save 0.0015 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 

consumer benefits would be $0.004 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $0.009 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 0.07 million metric tons of 

CO2, 0.02 thousand tons of NOX, 0.1 

thousand tons of SO2, and less than 

0.001 tons of Hg. The estimated 

monetary value of the cumulative CO2

emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges 

from less than $0.52 to $7.09 million. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $107.67. 

The median payback period is 0.8 years. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 90.3 percent while the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 9.7 percent. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $0.03 

million to a decrease of $0.01 million. 

At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk of 

very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7923 

60 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2013, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30- 

year period (2015 through 2044) that yields the 

same present value. The fixed annual payment is 

the annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

result in a net loss of 28.2 percent in 

INPV to manufacturers of high-power 

EPSs. However, as DOE has not 

identified any domestic manufacturers 

of high-power EPSs, it does not project 

any immediate negative impacts on 

direct domestic jobs. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

3 for high-power EPSs, the additional 

considerations of the potential negative 

impacts of a standard at this max-tech 

TSL outweigh the benefits of energy 

savings, emission reductions, and the 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions. DOE notes that it 

scaled results from product class B to 

estimate the cost and efficiency of this 

max-tech CSL. Consequently, DOE is 

unaware of any product that can achieve 

this efficiency level in either product 

class B or H. Thus, although DOE’s 

analysis indicates that the max-tech 

efficiency level is achievable, there is a 

risk that unforeseen obstacles remain to 

creating an EPS at this efficiency level. 

Additionally, setting a standard at 

TSL 3 would create a discontinuity in 

the active mode efficiency standards for 

EPSs. For product class B devices, the 

active mode efficiency standard is 

constant for nameplate output power 

ratings greater than 49 watts up to 250 

watts. At 250 watts, where product class 

H begins, the active mode efficiency 

standard would increase by 4 

percentage points if DOE set standards 

for this product class at the max-tech 

CSL. This discontinuity in efficiency 

between the two product classes would 

be the result of the standards for 

product class B being equivalent to the 

best-in-market CSL equation while the 

standards for product class H would be 

equivalent to the max-tech CSL equation 

for high-power EPSs. 

In contrast, by applying the same 

level of stringency, scaled for the 

representative unit voltage, to all EPSs 

with output power greater than 250 

watts, the achievable efficiency in EPS 

designs that have an output power 

above 49 watts remains nearly constant. 

This result occurs because the switching 

and conduction losses associated with 

the EPS remain proportionally the same 

with the increase in output power, 

which creates a relatively flat achievable 

efficiency above 49 watts. If DOE were 

to adopt a level that created a 

discontinuity in the efficiency levels, it 

would ignore this trend and set a higher 

efficiency standard between two 

product classes despite numerous 

technical similarities. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is 

not justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.0013 quads of energy an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 

benefits would be $0.005 billion, using 

a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.0011 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $142.18. 

The median payback period is 0.0 years. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 100.0 percent while 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC cost is 0.0 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 0.07 million metric tons of 

CO2, 0.02 thousand tons of NOX, 0.12 

thousand tons of SO2, and less than 

0.001 tons of Hg. The estimated 

monetary value of the cumulative CO2

emissions reductions at TSL 2 ranges 

from less than $0.46 to $6.38 million. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $0.03 

million to a decrease of less than 

$10,000. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes the 

risk of large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached, as DOE expects, TSL 2 could 

result in a net loss of 24.9 percent in 

INPV to manufacturers of high-power 

EPSs. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

2 for high-power EPSs, the benefits of 

energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, positive LCC savings 

for all consumers, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions outweigh the 

economic burden of the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin 

impacts that could result in a reduction 

in INPV for manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis, public 

comments on the NOPR, and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the 

Secretary concludes that this TSL will 

offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

today is adopting standards at TSL 2 for 

EPSs in product class H. The new 

energy conservation standards for these 

EPSs, expressed as a minimum average 

active-mode efficiency value and a 

maximum no-load input power value, 

are shown in Table V–41. 

4. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards, for products sold in 2015– 

2044, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from operating the product 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase and 

installation costs, which is another way 

of representing consumer NPV), plus (2) 

the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.60

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the value of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.039</GPH>
7924 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

EPSs shipped in 2015–2044. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the 

present value of all future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one metric ton of carbon 

dioxide in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of today’s standards are shown in 

Table V–42. The results under the 

primary estimate are as follows. Using a 

7-percent discount rate for benefits and 

costs other than CO2 reduction, for 

which DOE used a 3-percent discount 

rate along with the average SCC series 

that uses a 3-percent discount rate, the 

cost of the standards in today’s rule is 

$147 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the benefits are 

$293 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $77 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $1.1 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $223 million per 

year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for 

all benefits and costs and the average 

SCC series, the cost of the standards in 

today’s rule is $162 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $350 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $77 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $1.2 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $266 million per 

year. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7925 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.040</GPH>
7926 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5. Stakeholder Comments on 

Alternatives to Standards 

Cobra Electronics commented that the 

ENERGY STAR program is an effective 

means for encouraging the development 

of more efficient technologies. 

Furthermore, the use of a voluntary 

program would allow DOE to comply 

with Executive Order 13563, which 

directed federal agencies to ‘‘identify 

and assess available alternatives to 

direct regulation.’’ (Cobra Electronics, 

No. 130 at p. 8) Executive Order 13563 

also states that regulations should be 

adopted ‘‘only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs.’’ Because the selected standard 

levels are technologically feasible and 

economically justified, DOE has 

fulfilled its statutory obligations as well 

as the directives in Executive Order 

13563. In addition, DOE considered the 

impacts of a voluntary program as part 

of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and 

found that such a program would save 

less energy than standards (see chapter 

17 of the TSD). 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s 

standards address are as follows: 

(1) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of EPSs that are not captured 

by the users of such equipment. These 

benefits include externalities related to 

environmental protection and energy 

security that are not reflected in energy 

prices, such as reduced emissions of 

greenhouse gases. DOE attempts to 

quantify some of the external benefits 

through use of Social Cost of Carbon 

values. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule 

and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011)). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s final rule is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 

adopts as a final rule, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by Executive Order 

13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 

53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 

published procedures and policies on 

February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 

potential impacts of its rules on small 

entities are properly considered during 

the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. 

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site (http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7927 

For manufacturers of EPSs, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has set a 

size threshold, which defines those 

entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ 

for the purposes of the statute. DOE 

used the SBA’s small business size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 

30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 

FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and 

codified at 13 CFR part 121.The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and industry description and are 

available at http://www.sba.gov/content/ 

summary-size-standards-industry. EPS 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 335999, ‘‘All Other 

Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and 

Component Manufacturing.’’ The SBA 

sets a threshold of 500 employees or less 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

As discussed in the March 2012 

NOPR, DOE was unable to identify any 

EPS ODMs with domestic 

manufacturing. Information obtained 

from manufacturer interviews and 

DOE’s research; indicate that all EPS 

manufacturing takes place abroad. DOE 

notes that it also sought comment on 

this issue. While DOE received 

comments from small businesses 

application manufacturers who import 

EPSs (see discussion in J.4), DOE did 

not receive any comments from any 

small business EPS ODMs or any 

comments challenging the view that all 

EPS manufacturing is conducted abroad. 

Since DOE was not able to find any 

small EPS ODMs, DOE certifies that 

today’s final rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities and that a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of EPSs must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

EPSs, including any amendments 

adopted for those test procedures (76 FR 

12422 (March 7, 2011). DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including Class-A EPSs. (cite 429.37) 

DOE will modify the certification 

requirements specific to non-class A 

EPSs (multiple-voltage and highvoltage) in a separate certification 

rulemaking prior to the effective date for 

the standards prescribed in today’s rule. 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 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 of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the rule 

fits within the category of actions 

included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) 

B5.1 and otherwise meets the 

requirements for application of a CX. 

See 10 CFR Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 

1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)–(5). 

The rule fits within this category of 

actions because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX 

B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made 

a CX determination for this rulemaking, 

and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this rule. DOE’s CX determination for 

this rule is available at http://

cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

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. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of today’s final 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) 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,’’ 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; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). 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 section 3(a) and section 

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, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

regulatory action likely to result in a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

rule that may cause the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at http://energy.gov/gc/officegeneral-counsel. 

DOE has concluded that this final rule 

would likely require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Such expenditures may include: 

(1) Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by EPS manufacturers in 

the years between the final rule and the 

compliance date for the new standards, 

and (2) incremental additional 

expenditures by consumers to purchase 

higher-efficiency EPSs, starting at the 

compliance date for the applicable 

standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the notice of final rulemaking and the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ chapter of 

the final rule TSD respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise, or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(d), (f), and (o), 6313(e), and 

6316(a), today’s final rule would 

establish energy conservation standards 

for EPSs that are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE has determined to 

be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ chapter of the final rule TSD. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal 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 final 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 OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

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 significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for EPSs, 

is not a significant energy action 

because the standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the final rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7929 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to 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. 804(2). 

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, and Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 3, 

2014. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

chapter II, of title 10 of the 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. Section 430.2 is amended by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), 

and (c) in the definition for Annual fuel 

utilization efficiency as paragraphs (1), 

(2), and (3), respectively; 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for Basic-voltage external 

power supply and Direct operation 

external power supply; 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), 

(c), and (d) in the definition for Furnace 

as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), 

respectively; 

■ d. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for Indirect operation 

external power supply and Low-voltage 

external power supply; 

■ e. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), 

and (c) in the definition for Water heater 

as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), 

respectively. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Basic-voltage external power supply 

means an external power supply that is 

not a low-voltage external power 

supply. 

* * * * * 

Direct operation external power 

supply means an external power supply 

that can operate a consumer product 

that is not a battery charger without the 

assistance of a battery. 

* * * * * 

Indirect operation external power 

supply means an external power supply 

that cannot operate a consumer product 

that is not a battery charger without the 

assistance of a battery as determined by 

the steps in paragraphs (1)(i) through (v) 

of this definition: 

(1) If the external power supply (EPS) 

can be connected to an end-use 

consumer product and that consumer 

product can be operated using battery 

power, the method for determining 

whether that EPS is incapable of 

operating that consumer product 

directly is as follows: 

(i) If the end-use product has a 

removable battery, remove it for the 

remainder of the test and proceed to the 

step in paragraph (1)(v) of this 

definition. If not, proceed to the step in 

paragraph (1)(ii). 

(ii) Charge the battery in the 

application via the EPS such that the 

application can operate as intended 

before taking any additional steps. 

(iii) Disconnect the EPS from the 

application. From an off mode state, 

turn on the application and record the 

time necessary for it to become 

operational to the nearest five second 

increment (5 sec, 10 sec, etc.). 

(iv) Operate the application using 

power only from the battery until the 

application stops functioning due to the 

battery discharging. 

(v) Connect the EPS first to mains and 

then to the application. Immediately 

attempt to operate the application. If the 

battery was removed for testing and the 

end-use product operates as intended, 

the EPS is not an indirect operation EPS 

and paragraph 2 of this definition does 

not apply. If the battery could not be 

removed for testing, record the time for 

the application to become operational to 

the nearest five second increment (5 

seconds, 10 seconds, etc.). 

(2) If the time recorded in paragraph 

(1)(v) of this definition is greater than 

the summation of the time recorded in 

paragraph (1)(iii) of this definition and 

five seconds, the EPS cannot operate the 

application directly and is an indirect 

operation EPS. 

* * * * * 

Low-voltage external power supply 

means an external power supply with a 

nameplate output voltage less than 6 

volts and nameplate output current 

greater than or equal to 550 milliamps. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (p) introductory text 

and adding paragraph (p)(3) to read as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(p) U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 

20024, 202–586–2945, (Energy Star 

materials are also found at http://

www.energystar.gov.) 

* * * * * 

(3) International Efficiency Marking 

Protocol for External Power Supplies, 

Version 3.0, September 2013, IBR 

approved for § 430.32. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 430.32 is amended by 

revising paragraph (w) to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(w) External power supplies. (1)(i) 

Except as provided in paragraphs (w)(2) 

and (5) of this section, all Class A 

external power supplies manufactured 

on or after July 1, 2008, shall meet the 

following standards: 

Active Mode 

Nameplate output Required efficiency (decimal equivalent of a percentage) 

Less than 1 watt ....................................................................................... 0.5 times the Nameplate output. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7930 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Active Mode 

Nameplate output Required efficiency (decimal equivalent of a percentage) 

From 1 watt to not more than 51 watts .................................................... The sum of 0.09 times the Natural Logarithm of the Nameplate Output 

and 0.5. 

Greater than 51 watts ............................................................................... 0.85. 

Not more than 250 watts .......................................................................... 0.5 watts. 

(ii) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(w)(5), (w)(6), and (w)(7) of this section, 

all direct operation external power 

supplies manufactured on or after 

February 10, 2016, shall meet the 

following standards: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7931 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.042</GPH>
7932 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) A Class A external power supply 

shall not be subject to the standards in 

paragraph (w)(1)(i) of this section if the 

Class A external power supply is— 

(i) Manufactured during the period 

beginning on July 1, 2008, and ending 

on June 30, 2015, and 

(ii) Made available by the 

manufacturer as a service part or a spare 

part for an end-use product— 

(A) That constitutes the primary load; 

and 

(B) Was manufactured before July 1, 

2008. 

(3) The standards described in 

paragraph (w)(1) of this section shall not 

constitute an energy conservation 

standard for the separate end-use 

product to which the external power 

supply is connected. 

(4) Any external power supply subject 

to the standards in paragraph (w)(1) of 

this section shall be clearly and 

permanently marked in accordance with 

the International Efficiency Marking 

Protocol for External Power Supplies 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

published by the U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

(5) Non-application of no-load mode 

requirements. The no-load mode energy 

efficiency standards established in 

paragraph (w)(1) of this section shall not 

apply to an external power supply 

manufactured before July 1, 2017, that— 

(i) Is an AC-to-AC external power 

supply; 

(ii) Has a nameplate output of 20 

watts or more; 

(iii) Is certified to the Secretary as 

being designed to be connected to a 

security or life safety alarm or 

surveillance system component; and 

(iv) On establishment within the 

External Power Supply International 

Efficiency Marking Protocol, as 

referenced in the ‘‘Energy Star Program 

Requirements for Single Voltage 

External Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power 

Supplies’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 430.3), published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency, of a 

distinguishing mark for products 

described in this clause, is permanently 

marked with the distinguishing mark. 

(6) An external power supply shall 

not be subject to the standards in 

paragraph (w)(1) of this section if it is 

a device that requires Federal Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) listing and 

approval as a medical device in 

accordance with section 513 of the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(21 U.S.C. 360(c)). 

(7) A direct operation, AC–DC 

external power supply with nameplate 

output voltage less than 3 volts and 

nameplate output current greater than or 

equal to 1,000 milliamps that charges 

the battery of a product that is fully or 

primarily motor operated shall not be 

subject to the standards in paragraph 

(w)(1)(ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–02560 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10FE14.043</GPH>