This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

60996 

Vol. 79, No. 196 

Thursday, October 9, 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0043] 

RIN 1904–AD36 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for External Power 

Supplies 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy is proposing to revise its test 

procedure for external power supplies. 

These proposed revisions, if adopted, 

would harmonize the instrumentation 

resolution and uncertainty requirements 

with the second edition of the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) 62301 standard when 

measuring standby power along with 

other international standards programs. 

The proposal would also clarify certain 

testing set-up requirements. Finally, 

DOE is proposing an optional test to 

measure the active-mode efficiency at a 

10% loading condition and an optional 

recording of power factor at this loading 

condition and each of the other required 

loading conditions. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking no later than 

December 8, 2014. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. DOE 

will hold a public meeting on this 

proposed test procedure if one is 

requested by October 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the NOPR for Test 

Procedures for External Power Supplies, 

and provide docket number EERE– 

2014–BT–TP–0043 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) number 

1904–AD36. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: 

ExtPowerSupplies2014TP0043@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: 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. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx?productid=23 . This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice on the regulations.gov site. 

The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V 

for information on how to submit 

comments through regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or to request 

a public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda 

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

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information may be sent to Mr. Jeremy 

Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9870. 

Email: battery_chargers_and_

external_power_supplies@EE.Doe.Gov. 

For legal issues, please contact 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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. Scope 

2. Definitions 

3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions 

4. Test Measurement 

III. Discussion 

A. Measurement Accuracy and Precision 

B. Test Set-up 

C. EPSs with Current Limits 

D. Power Factor 

E. Adaptive EPSs 

F. EPS Loading Points 

G. Energy Conservation Standards 

H. Indirect Operation EPSs 

I. Scope of Coverage 

1. Solid State Lighting 

2. Convert to Only One AC or DC Output 

Voltage at the Same Time 

3. Power over Ethernet 

4. Security or Life Safety Alarm or 

Surveillance Systems 

J. Sampling Plan 

K. Effective Date and Compliance Date of 

Test Procedure 

L. Impacts from the Test Procedure 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60997 

1The terms ‘‘AC’’ and ‘‘DC’’ refer to the polarity 

(i.e., direction) and amplitude of current and 

voltage associated with electrical power. For 

example, a household wall socket supplies 

alternating current (AC), which varies in amplitude 

and reverses polarity. In contrast, a battery or solar 

cell supplies direct current (DC), which is constant 

in both amplitude and polarity. 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, in context, 

‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a variety of 

provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer 

to the statute as amended through the 

American Energy Manufacturing 

Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), 

Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).) Part B 

of title III, which for editorial reasons 

was re-designated as Part A upon 

incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ External power 

supplies are among the products 

affected by these provisions. 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products must 

use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE 

that their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of those products. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with any relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE follows 

when prescribing or amending test 

procedures for covered products. EPCA 

provides in relevant part that any test 

procedures prescribed or amended 

under this section shall be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

measure the energy efficiency, energy 

use, or estimated annual operating cost 

of a covered product during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and shall not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)) 

In addition, when DOE determines 

that a test procedure requires amending, 

it publishes a notice with the proposed 

changes and offers the public an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) As part 

of this process, DOE determines the 

extent to which, if any, the proposed 

test procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency of any covered 

product as determined under the 

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

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

amended test procedure would 

significantly alter the measured 

efficiency of a covered product, DOE 

would amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

Section 135 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Pub. L. No. 109– 

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

and 325 of EPCA by adding certain 

provisions related to external power 

supplies (EPSs). Among these 

provisions were new definitions 

defining what constitutes an EPS and a 

requirement that DOE prescribe 

‘‘definitions and test procedures for the 

power use of battery chargers and 

external power supplies.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(A)) DOE complied with this 

requirement by publishing a test 

procedure final rule on December 8, 

2006, that, among other things, 

established a new appendix Z to subpart 

B of part 430 (‘‘appendix Z’’) to address 

the testing of EPSs to measure their 

energy efficiency and power 

consumption. See 71 FR 71340 (codified 

at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

Z ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of External 

Power Supplies’’). 

Congress further amended EPCA’s 

EPS provisions through its enactment of 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 

110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007). That law 

amended sections 321, 323, and 325 of 

EPCA. These changes are noted below. 

Section 301 of EISA 2007 amended 

section 321 of EPCA by modifying the 

EPS-related definitions found in 42 

U.S.C. 6291. While EPACT 2005 defined 

an EPS as ‘‘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,’’ 1 42 U.S.C. 

6291(36)(A), section 301 of EISA 2007 

further amended this definition by 

creating a subset of EPSs called Class A 

External Power Supplies. EISA 2007 

defined this subset of products as those 

EPSs that, in addition to meeting several 

other requirements common to all EPSs, 

are ‘‘able to convert [line voltage AC] to 

only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a 

time’’ and have ‘‘nameplate output 

power that is less than or equal to 250 

watts.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) As 

part of these amendments, EISA 2007 

prescribed minimum standards for these 

products and directed DOE to publish a 

final rule by July 1, 2011, to determine 

whether to amend these standards. See 

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

Section 310 of EISA 2007 amended 

section 325 of EPCA by defining the 

terms ‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘standby mode,’’ 

and ‘‘off mode.’’ Each of these modes 

corresponds to the operational status of 

a given product—i.e., whether it is (1) 

plugged into AC mains and switched 

‘‘on’’ and performing its intended 

function, (2) plugged in but not 

performing its intended function (i.e., 

simply ‘‘standing by’’ to be operated), or 

(3) plugged in but switched ‘‘off’’ if a 

manual on-off switch is present. Section 

310 also required DOE to amend its test 

procedures to ensure that standby and 

off mode energy consumption are 

measured. It also authorized DOE to 

amend, by rule, any of the definitions 

for active, standby, and off mode as long 

as the DOE considers the most current 

versions of Standards 62301 

(‘‘Household Electrical Appliances— 

Measurement of Standby Power’’) and 

62087 (‘‘Methods of Measurement for 

the Power Consumption of Audio, 

Video and Related Equipment’’) of the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC). See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A) (incorporating EISA 2007 

amendments related to standby and off 

mode energy). Consistent with these 

provisions, DOE issued a final rule that 

defined and added these terms and 

definitions to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix Z (‘‘appendix Z’’). See 74 

FR 13318 (March 27, 2009). 

DOE further amended appendix Z by 

adding a test method for multiplevoltage EPSs. 76 FR 31750. The 

amendments also revised the definition 

of ‘‘active power’’ and clarified how to 

test EPSs that have a current-limiting 

function along with those devices that 

either (1) combine this function with the 

ability to communicate with their loads 

or (2) can communicate with their loads 

but without combining that capability 

with a current-limiting function. A 

current-limited EPS is one that can 

significantly lower its output voltage 

once an internal, output-current limit 

has been exceeded, while an EPS that 

communicates with its load refers to an 

EPS’s ability to identify or otherwise 

exchange information with its load (i.e., 

the end-use product to which it is 

connected). These revisions were 

necessary to provide manufacturers 

with sufficient clarity on how to 

conduct the test and how to report the 

measured energy use for these types of 

EPSs. 

After releasing a preliminary analysis 

and issuing a proposed set of energy 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

conservation standards, DOE published 

a final rule prescribing new standards 

for non-Class A EPSs and amended 

standards for some Class A EPSs. See 79 

FR 7845 (Feb. 20, 2014). Manufacturers 

of the affected products must meet these 

standards by 2016. 

Since the publication of those 

standards, DOE has received follow-up 

questions and requests for clarification 

regarding the testing of EPSs. To ensure 

that manufacturers have sufficient 

clarity regarding the testing of their 

products, particularly in light of the fact 

that they will soon be required to certify 

those products as being compliant with 

the new standards, DOE is proposing to 

make certain clarifications to appendix 

Z to eliminate any testing ambiguity 

when measuring the efficiency of an 

EPS. These proposed changes would 

update references to the latest version of 

IEC 62301 and clarify DOE’s test 

methods to better reflect evolving 

technologies. 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

This proposal seeks to make several 

changes to the current test procedure for 

measuring the energy efficiency of EPSs. 

First, it would harmonize DOE’s test 

procedure with the latest version of IEC 

62301 by providing specific resolution 

and measurement tolerances. These 

specifications will assist in ensuring 

that testing is performed with 

equipment that is capable of reaching 

these tolerances and that the resulting 

measurements are consistent. 

Second, the proposal would define 

and clarify how to test adaptive EPSs 

(also referred to as ‘‘adaptive-charging’’, 

‘‘smart-charging’’ or ‘‘quick-charging’’ 

EPSs). Because these types of EPSs were 

not considered when the current test 

procedure was first adopted, Appendix 

Z does not provide the means to address 

the unique characteristics of these types 

of EPSs fully and consistently without 

the addition of certain clarifications that 

DOE is proposing. These proposed 

clarifications will provide a 

standardized method for all 

manufacturers and testing laboratories 

to follow when testing an adaptive EPS. 

Third, DOE is proposing to add test 

configurations that can be used to avoid 

potential losses caused by testing cables. 

Appendix Z does not clearly outline 

how multiple measurement devices that 

operate simultaneously should be 

connected to a unit under test (UUT). 

These changes would remove the 

potential for electrical energy losses in 

the measurement cables and guarantee 

accurate, repeatable, and reproducible 

results. 

Fourth, DOE would clarify that when 

testing an EPS that is incapable of being 

tested at one or more of the loading 

conditions used to calculate the average 

active-mode efficiency, such conditions 

will be omitted when calculating this 

metric. Instead, the average active-mode 

efficiency will be determined by 

averaging the efficiency results at each 

of the loading conditions that can be 

measured. 

Fifth, the proposal would add an 

optional procedure for measuring the 

active-mode efficiency of a unit under 

test that would occur at the 10 percent 

loading condition to gain a broader 

understanding of EPS efficiency at low 

load levels and increase the flexibility of 

the test procedure. Adding this optional 

provision would enable DOE, 

manufacturers, and testing labs to gain 

familiarity with the measurement of this 

additional loading point. This 

additional condition would affect both 

single-voltage and multiple-voltage 

EPSs but would not be used for 

purposes of calculating the average 

active-mode efficiency that a 

manufacturer must report for 

compliance purposes. Reporting of the 

test results of this loading condition also 

would not be required as part of the 

compliance certification. It may, 

however, be used in helping develop 

future EPS energy conservation 

standards should DOE decide that 

amending these standards would meet 

the statutory requirements. 

Sixth, DOE is proposing to add a 

provision to permit the optional 

recording of power factor during testing. 

Power factor is a measurement of the 

transfer of electrical power to a given 

device—with a higher power factor 

signaling a more efficient system for 

delivering real power and a lower power 

factor pointing to a less efficient one. 

Adding this optional measurement 

would assist DOE in its understanding 

of EPS efficiency on a system level. In 

the case of an EPS, a lower power factor 

in a given design mainly impacts the 

amount of transmission line loss within 

the building where the EPS is operating. 

By recording the power factor at each 

load condition, manufacturers may be 

willing to provide DOE with more data 

regarding how these losses may impact 

the total efficiency profile of an EPS. 

This additional information, similar to 

the data obtained through the use of the 

additional loading point data noted 

above, could be used by the agency in 

subsequent rulemakings to help craft a 

more precise and accurate means of 

evaluating EPS efficiency that will 

enable manufacturers to produce more 

effective and efficient EPSs while 

ensuring that consumer needs continue 

to be met. By adding this optional 

provision, manufacturers, DOE, and 

testing labs will also gain familiarity 

with measuring and recording this 

element during testing. 

Seventh, DOE is proposing to add 

clarifying language to the EPS standards 

published in § 430.32 (‘‘Energy and 

water conservation standards and their 

compliance dates’’). DOE believes that 

further detail is necessary to help clarify 

which standards apply to each type of 

EPS. To this end, DOE proposes to 

insert a summary table to enable one to 

more readily identify which standards 

apply to which type of EPS. While these 

revisions will not affect either the 

current or February 2016 EPS standards, 

they will aid manufacturers in 

complying with the new regulations. 

Finally, DOE is proposing to expand 

the scope of its sampling plan for Class 

A EPSs to apply to those that will be 

subject to standards for the first time in 

2016. DOE is proposing these revisions 

to consolidate all EPSs within the scope 

of federal standards under one sampling 

plan and to provide manufacturers with 

the necessary procedures they will need 

to follow when certifying their EPSs as 

compliant with the applicable 

standards. Previously, DOE only 

provided a sampling plan for Class A 

EPSs and reserved a second sampling 

plan for non-Class A EPSs. By adopting 

a single sampling plan that would apply 

to all EPSs, DOE would be creating a 

single approach for ensuring that a 

given EPS basic model complies with 

the applicable standards. 

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

[Appendix Z to subpart B of part 430—uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of external power supplies] 

Existing section in 10 CFR part 430 Summary of modifications 

1. Scope .......................................... • No Change. 

2. Definitions ................................... • Inserting definitions for ‘‘average active-mode efficiency’’ and ‘‘adaptive external power supply’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60999 

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

[Appendix Z to subpart B of part 430—uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of external power supplies] 

Existing section in 10 CFR part 430 Summary of modifications 

3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions.• Insert exceptions to the test method of 3(a) within subsections 3(a)(i) and 3(a)(ii). 

• Incorporate by reference the uncertainty and resolution requirements of the IEC 62301 (2nd Ed.) standard in 3(a)(i)(A). 

4. Test Measurement ...................... • Modify 4(a)(i) to include a table of the required loading conditions and an additional optional loading 

point at a 10 percent loading condition 

• Insert an optional power factor measurement at each loading condition in 4(a)(i). 

• Clarify the necessary connections when using multiple measurement devices (4(a)(i)). 

• Clarify how to test when one or more loading conditions cannot be sustained (4(a)(i)(B)). 

• Modify 4(a)(ii) to refer to the appropriate loading conditions in Table 1. 

• Modify several sections of 4(b)(i) to refer to an updated Table 2. 

• Revising 4(b)(i)(A)(5) to refer to a new Table 2, which contains a list of prescribed loading conditions to 

use, including a new 10 percent loading condition. 

• Modify 4(b)(ii) to refer to the updated loading conditions in new Table 2. 

III. Discussion 

A. Measurement Accuracy and 

Precision 

On June 13, 2005, the IEC published 

its first edition of testing standard IEC 

62301, which provided a method for 

measuring standby power of household 

appliances. The standard quantified 

minimum resolution requirements for 

energy measurement instruments and 

outlined the necessary procedures to 

ensure stable energy readings for any 

unit under test (UUT). The standard also 

set limits on the uncertainties associated 

with any measurement taken that is 

meant to represent the energy 

consumption of a household device. It 

has since become recognized by many 

regulatory bodies as the default 

guideline for any power or energy 

measurement required for formal 

certification. DOE subsequently adopted 

instrumentation resolution and 

measurement uncertainty requirements 

identical to those in the IEC 62301 

standard and codified these 

requirements at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, 

appendix Z on June 1, 2011. 76 FR 

31750. 

The IEC published Edition 2.0 of IEC 

62301 in January 2011. This revised 

version of the testing standard refined 

the test equipment specifications, 

measuring techniques, and uncertainty 

determination to improve the method 

for measuring loads with high crest 

factors and/or low power factors, such 

as the low power modes typical of EPSs 

operating in no-load mode. These 

provisions were contained in Section 4 

of IEC 62301, with informative guidance 

provided in Annex B and Annex D on 

measuring low power modes and 

determining measurement uncertainty. 

To ease the overall burden involved 

with the testing of EPSs, and to continue 

to improve DOE’s efforts at harmonizing 

its testing requirements where feasible 

to do so, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the second 

edition of IEC 62301 for the application 

of testing EPS energy consumption. This 

proposed action would include the 

resolution parameters for power 

measurements and uncertainty 

methodologies found in Section 4 

(General conditions for measurements) 

as well as the associated references to 

Annexes B (Notes on the measurement 

of low power modes) and D 

(Determination of uncertainty of 

measurement) within that section of the 

second edition of the IEC 62301 

standard. DOE seeks comment on the 

merits of incorporating these revisions 

into the current EPS test procedure in 

appendix Z. 

B. Test Set-up 

DOE had previously proposed, and 

ultimately finalized, requirements in 

2006 that incorporated by reference 

certain sections of a test procedure 

adopted by the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) into appendix Z. See 

generally, 71 FR 71339 (Dec. 8, 2006) 

(final rule incorporating elements of the 

CEC test procedure for EPSs). That 

procedure—‘‘Test Method for 

Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 

Single-Voltage External AC–DC and 

AC–AC Power Supplies (August 11, 

2004)’’—contained a number of 

provisions, including one 

(‘‘Measurement Approach’’) that 

outlined how UUTs should be 

conditioned and connected to metering 

equipment to perform the test properly 

regardless of the type of load. While this 

provision generally describes the testing 

set-up to follow, it also contains gaps 

that could lead to ambiguous results 

when testing an EPS. In particular, the 

procedure does not specify how to 

connect metering equipment in certain 

EPS configurations. 

As described in section 4 (‘‘General 

Conditions for Measurement’’) of the 

CEC procedure, power measurements 

can be made using either power 

analyzers or suitably calibrated 

voltmeters and ammeters. When using 

voltmeters and ammeters, the activemode efficiency at each loading 

condition can be calculated using the 

output voltage measurement from the 

voltmeter and the output current 

measurement from the ammeter. DOE 

has found that resistive losses can be 

inadvertently introduced into the test 

set-up, which can affect the results and 

the overall calculated average, active 

load efficiency. These losses would not 

occur when using an EPS to power an 

end-use product. They do occur, 

however, if the voltmeter and ammeter 

are not physically and electrically 

connected to the output terminal of the 

EPS. Specifically, lower voltage 

measurements can result when 

connecting the voltmeter after the series 

ammeter connection as opposed to 

physically and electrically connecting 

the voltmeter directly to the output. 

Although, in theory, the ammeter acts as 

a dead short (i.e., a short circuit having 

zero resistance) and does not introduce 

electrical resistance during the 

measurement, in practice, the testing 

leads can introduce resistive losses that 

vary based on, among other factors, the 

wire gauge of the leads, the length of the 

leads, and the frequency of the signal 

being measured. At higher current 

loads, these losses become even more 

pronounced and can lead to significant 

resistive losses within the signal path 

despite the low impedance nature of 

ammeters. The existence of these losses 

results in an inaccurate output power 

calculation (and inaccurate efficiency 

measurements) under all loading 

conditions, as the voltmeter measures a 

lower voltage than the EPS is actually 

producing. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2American Wire Gauge (AWG) is a standardized 

wire gauge system to quantify the diameter of 

electrically conducting wire. 

To illustrate this point, DOE tested a 

single EPS unit using two different 

testing configurations. In the ‘‘lossproducing’’ (or ‘‘lossy’’) configuration, 

DOE used a voltmeter to measure the 

voltage at the load after the ammeter 

measurement using 10 AWG 2 banana 

cable interconnects rated for 10 amps 

and 600 volts. This testing setup 

resulted in significantly lower efficiency 

measurements across all loading 

conditions than the ‘‘lossless’’ 

configuration where the voltage was 

measured at the output connector of the 

EPS. As expected, the difference in the 

efficiency measurements was even more 

pronounced as the current load was 

increased. The results comparing the 

two different testing configurations are 

summarized in Table III–1. 

TABLE III–1—EPS EFFICIENCY TESTING VARIATION RESULTS

25% Load 50% Load 75% Load 100% Load 

Average 

active-mode 

efficiency 

SETUP #1* (LOSS-PRODUCING): 

Input Power (W) ............................................................ 10 .37 20 .57 30 .89 41 .36 ........................

Output Voltage (V) ........................................................ 11 .69 11 .12 10 .37 9 .83 ........................

Output Current (A) ........................................................ 0 .75 1 .5 2 .25 3 ........................

Efficiency ....................................................................... 84 .5% 81 .1% 75 .5% 71 .3% 78.1% 

SETUP #2* (LOSSLESS): 

Input Power (W) ............................................................ 10 .37 20 .57 30 .89 41 .36 ........................

Output Voltage (V) ........................................................ 12 .01 11 .85 11 .6 11 .53 ........................

Output Current (A) ........................................................ 0 .75 1 .5 2 .25 3 ........................

Efficiency ....................................................................... 86 .9% 86 .4% 84 .5% 83 .6% 85.3% 

Difference .................................................................. 2 .3% 5 .3% 9 .0% 12 .3% 7.2% 

* All testing results are based on the results collected from a 12V, 3A external power supply. 

DOE believes that most technicians 

are already setting up their test 

equipment to connect directly to the 

output to avoid these resistance losses. 

However, based on the test results 

presented in Table III–1 and because the 

CEC test method does not specifically 

explain how to attach measurement 

equipment, DOE believes that additional 

details on how to set up the test 

equipment should be provided to ensure 

such losses are not introduced. 

Accordingly, DOE proposes to amend 

section 4(a)(i) of appendix Z to require 

that any equipment necessary to 

measure the active-mode efficiency of a 

UUT at a specific loading condition 

must be connected directly to the output 

cable of the unit. This step will remove 

any unintended losses in the test 

measurement introduced by the 

metering equipment because both 

meters will be measuring directly from 

the output connector of the EPS rather 

than at different points in the signal 

path. DOE seeks comment on whether 

these additional clarifications regarding 

the testing set-up when using voltmeters 

and ammeters would help to clarify the 

test method and ensure testing accuracy. 

C. EPSs With Current Limits 

The EPS test procedure produces five 

output values that are used to determine 

whether a tested EPS complies with 

Federal standards. These output values 

(or metrics) are outlined in sections 

4(a)(i) and 5(b)(i)(A)(5) of appendix Z 

and include active-mode efficiency 

measurements at 25 percent, 50 percent, 

75 percent, and 100 percent load, as 

well as the total power consumption of 

an EPS at 0 percent load. The four 

loaded efficiencies (i.e., 25 percent 

through 100 percent) are averaged to 

determine the overall EPS conversion 

efficiency. This average efficiency can 

be compared to the federal standard, 

which is an equation that determines 

the minimum required efficiency based 

on the nameplate output power of the 

EPS under consideration. However, 

some EPSs, like those used for radios 

and LED applications, are designed to 

drive the output voltage to zero under 

specific loading conditions either to 

protect the EPS from damage, or 

overstress, or because the end-use 

application was never designed to 

operate in those states. Thus, it is not 

possible to measure the efficiency at 

these specific loading conditions. (This 

type of feature or technology is 

commonly referred to as ‘‘outputcurrent-limiting’’ or ‘‘current-limiting’’ 

because of the device’s actions to limit 

the output current to the connected 

device that the EPS serves.) Prior to the 

publication of the June 2011 test 

procedure final rule, DOE solicited 

comments from interested parties 

concerning how to test EPSs that utilize 

output-current-limiting techniques at 

100 percent load using the test 

procedure in appendix Z. 75 FR at 

16973. Based on the comments received 

and to ensure that these types of EPSs 

could be tested for compliance with the 

federal standards, DOE amended section 

4(a)(i) to allow manufacturers with 

products that limit the output current at 

100 percent load to test and certify 

affected individual units using activemode efficiencies measured at 25 

percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent 

loads. 76 FR at 31771. 

Since these amendments were made, 

DOE has become aware of other EPS 

designs, specifically those that operate 

LED drivers, which employ currentlimiting circuitry at loading conditions 

under 100 percent as a form of fault 

protection and reset. These EPSs will 

drive the output voltage down to zero to 

eliminate any power delivery when the 

end-use product demands less than a 

certain percentage of the nameplate 

output current. Once the output has 

been reduced to zero, the EPS will 

periodically check the output load 

conditions by momentarily 

reestablishing the nameplate output 

voltage and monitoring the resulting 

current draw. If the minimum output 

current is not reached during these 

periods, the output is driven to zero 

again and the EPS output power drops 

to zero. This technique is commonly 

referred to as ‘‘hiccup protection’’ and it 

serves to protect both the EPS and the 

end-use product from damage if the 

product begins to operate in a range 

outside its intended design. 

Additionally, hiccup protection can be 

used to minimize energy consumption 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61001 

3NRDC: External Power Supplies—Additional 

Efficiency Opportunities, http://www.appliancestandards.org/sites/default/files/Next_Efficiency_

Opportunities_for_External_Power_Supplies_

NRDC.pdf 

4EPA: ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements 

for Single Voltage External AC-DC and AC-AC 

Power Supplies Eligibility Criteria (Version 2.0), 

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

development/revisions/downloads/eps_spec_v2.pdf 

by quickly putting the EPS into a 

standby state if the end-use product 

requires only a constant current load to 

operate and the current demand falls 

below the minimum current load 

threshold. Similar to EPSs that limit 

output current at maximum load, these 

EPSs cannot be tested and certified 

properly under the current DOE test 

procedure when testing at a 25 percent 

load. At this loading condition, EPSs 

with hiccup protection that are designed 

for lower load conditions would not 

provide any output power to measure 

efficiency. 

To quantify the active-mode 

efficiency of these EPSs, DOE proposes 

to amend section 4(a)(i)(C) of appendix 

Z (which includes a procedure to test 

those EPSs that list both an 

instantaneous and continuous output 

current) to require that in cases where 

an EPS cannot sustain output at one or 

more of the four loading conditions, 

these loading conditions would not be 

measured. Instead, for these EPSs, the 

average efficiency would be the average 

of the loading conditions for which it 

can sustain output. In addition to this 

provision, DOE proposes to define the 

‘‘average active-mode efficiency’’ of an 

EPS as the average of the loading 

conditions (100 percent, 75 percent, 50 

percent, and 25 percent of its nameplate 

output current) for which the EPS can 

sustain the output current. Defining 

average active mode efficiency will 

assist manufacturers in preparing 

certification reports and provide 

additional clarity as to which metrics 

are considered for compliance with the 

current federal standards. By including 

the necessary loading points within the 

definition, there will be a clearer 

distinction between the outputs of the 

test procedure and the data points 

required for certification. DOE seeks 

comment on the benefits or burdens of 

representing the average active-mode 

efficiency of these devices as the 

average of the efficiencies at the loading 

conditions that can be tested and on the 

proposed definition for average active 

mode efficiency. Among the issues of 

interest to DOE is what impact, if any, 

the proposed changes would have on 

the results from testing and whether the 

proposed changes would resolve the 

identified issues. 

D. Power Factor 

Power factor is a relative measure of 

transmission losses between the power 

plant and an item plugged into AC 

mains (i.e., a wall outlet). Due to 

nonlinear and energy-storage circuit 

elements such as diodes and inductors, 

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 active 

power drawn by the EPS or transmitted 

to the load. 

However, although the EPS itself 

consumes no active power, these 

currents are real and cause power 

dissipation from conduction losses in 

the transmission and distribution 

wiring, which is referred to as reactive 

power. The power factor of a given 

device is represented as a ratio of the 

active power delivered to the device 

relative to the combination of this 

reactive power and active power. An 

ideal load will have a power factor of 1, 

where all the power generated is 

delivered to the load as active power. 

For a given nameplate output power and 

efficiency, products with a lower power 

factor cause greater power dissipation in 

the transmission wiring, an effect that 

also becomes more pronounced at 

higher input powers. 

As the National Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) noted in its primer on 

additional energy efficiency 

opportunities for EPSs, a device with a 

power factor of 0.4 draws 2.5 times 

more current than a device with a power 

factor of 1 and can cause building wire 

losses to be 6.25 times greater in the 

worst case scenario.3 In this scenario, 

the amount of electricity required by the 

device is far greater than the real (i.e., 

active) power delivered, resulting in 

poor system efficiency. The significance 

of power factor’s role in overall energy 

consumption has also been recognized 

by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). Its voluntary ENERGY STAR 

program previously included provisions 

that restricted the minimum power 

factor at 100 percent load for EPSs with 

nameplate output powers greater than or 

equal to 100 watts,4 which helped to 

reduce I2R (i.e., electrical resistance) 

losses in building distribution wiring as 

part of their efficiency program for 

EPSs. These provisions also aligned 

with version 4 of the EPA’s prior 

program requirements for internal 

computer power supplies. 

DOE has acknowledged the grid-level 

impact of power factor when it comes to 

EPS design, but stated that it would be 

difficult to accurately quantify 

transmission losses because they would 

depend on the length of the 

transmission wires, which differ for 

each residential consumer. See 79 FR at 

7869. However, DOE believes that 

power factor is a critical component in 

establishing the overall efficiency 

profile of EPSs. Most of the efficient 

power supplies available on the market 

today use switched-mode topologies 

(i.e., power transfer circuits that use 

switching elements and electromagnetic 

fields to transmit power) that draw 

current in short spikes from the power 

grid. These current spikes can cause the 

voltage and current input waveforms of 

the EPS to be significantly out of phase, 

resulting in a low power factor and 

putting more stress on the power grid to 

deliver real power. While switchedmode power supplies have served to 

dramatically improve the achievable 

efficiencies of EPSs, the fact that power 

factor has gone unexamined during their 

widespread adoption has brought 

overall system efficiency into 

consideration. Therefore, DOE believes 

that in order to capture a representative 

average use cycle for EPSs, power factor 

should be taken into consideration at 

each loading condition. However, at this 

time DOE is proposing to make power 

factor measurements optional within the 

test procedure and will not require any 

power factor measurements recorded 

during testing to be submitted in any 

certification report. Modifying the test 

procedure in this way will increase 

testing flexibility with minimal 

additional testing burden should 

technicians choose to conduct the 

additional measurements, as most 

modern power analyzers are capable of 

measuring true power factor. Because 

DOE requires direct meter readings of 

input and output power at each loading 

condition, the power factor at each 

loading condition can be collected at the 

same time as the efficiency 

measurements with virtually no added 

test time or equipment. However, DOE 

also recognizes the variability associated 

with measuring power factor. EPSs that 

lack any sort of corrective power factor 

circuitry can have varying power factors 

depending on the conditions 

surrounding the transmission lines in 

the testing area as well as the input 

impedance. These variables could affect 

the repeatability of any power factor 

measurements in EPSs that do not 

contain corrective circuitry. As such, 

DOE is seeking comment on the impacts 

and testing burdens related to including 

optional power factor measurements at 

each loading condition as well as any 

potential pitfalls related to repeatability 

in EPSs without power factor correction. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5At higher output voltages, EPSs typically have 

greater efficiency due to a lower loss ratio of the 

fixed voltage drops in the conversion circuitry to 

the nominal output voltage. These losses do not 

increase linearly with output voltage, so higher 

output voltages typically provide greater conversion 

efficiency. 

E. Adaptive EPSs 

DOE is proposing that EPSs capable of 

adjusting their output voltage be tested 

at both the highest and lowest output 

voltage for loading conditions where 

output current is greater than 0% 

(currently, loading conditions 1 to 4). 

For the 0% loading condition (currently, 

loading condition 5), DOE is proposing 

to add clarifying language stating that 

the EPS under test be placed in no-load 

mode and any additional signal 

connections to the unit be disconnected 

prior to measuring input power. Several 

considerations led DOE to propose this 

particular approach. 

The newly amended Federal 

efficiency standards for EPSs determine 

the minimum mandatory average activemode efficiency for an EPS using a 

series of equations and the product’s 

nameplate output power. 79 FR at 7848– 

7849. Typically, an EPS will have a 

nameplate output voltage, nameplate 

output power, and/or a nameplate 

output current listed so that, among 

other reasons, original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) can utilize them 

as off-the-shelf designs for their 

products. DOE uses these metrics to 

determine the necessary loading 

conditions for testing and ultimately 

how to determine the average activemode efficiency and no-load power 

measurement of the EPS. The average 

active-mode efficiency is calculated by 

determining the average of the 

efficiencies measured at loading 

conditions of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 

25% of the rated nameplate output 

current (loading conditions 1 to 4). Noload mode power is equal to the active 

input power at the loading condition 

which is 0% of nameplate output 

current (currently referred to as loading 

condition 5). 

As was noted in chapter 11 of the 

technical support document (TSD) to 

the standards final rule for EPSs 

published on February 10, 2014, one of 

the largest applications of EPSs within 

the consumer marketplace is in portable 

computing devices, such as tablets and 

mobile phones. Since the publication of 

the final rule, DOE has become aware of 

a new charging technology where EPSs 

designed around the current universal 

charging solution (UCS) utilize a 

specific communication protocol with 

their end-use devices to draw higher 

charging currents than the universal 

serial bus (USB) standard specifies 

when the battery is significantly 

depleted. This technology enables the 

use of a faster charging rate, which 

effectively decreases the overall 

charging time needed to replenish the 

discharged battery. In many cases, this 

means increasing the output voltage as 

well as the output power of the EPS to 

recharge a deeply discharged battery 

within the end-use product. This 

technique is commonly referred to as 

‘‘quick charging’’ or ‘‘adaptive 

charging’’, but manufacturers may refer 

to this charging methodology in several 

different ways. 

DOE’s current understanding is that 

the faster charge rate only occurs when 

the communication protocol between 

the EPS and the device is activated, 

which could not occur via a userinitiated action because the user is not 

given access to change the charging rate. 

Instead, charging is activated through 

communication lines between the 

charger and the charge control chip 

embedded in the end-use device. The 

user remains unaware of this 

communication for the duration of the 

charge. Only certain products paired 

with the necessary chargers will be able 

to communicate and have the EPS 

provide higher charging current, 

whereas the same charger would 

provide a lower charging current when 

paired with a device not capable of this 

communication. Provided that these 

EPSs would produce only one output 

voltage at a time, they would be 

considered single-voltage EPSs and not 

multiple voltage EPSs under the 

definitions established for single-voltage 

and multiple-voltage EPSs in appendix 

Z. However, DOE proposes to further 

classify these types of EPSs in appendix 

Z as ‘‘adaptive external power supplies’’ 

and define them as single-voltage 

external power supplies that can alter 

their output voltage during active mode 

based on an established communication 

protocol with the end-use application 

without any user-generated action. DOE 

is seeking comment on whether the 

proposed definition of an adaptive 

external power supply accurately 

describes this new type of EPS and on 

any potential improvements that could 

be made to the proposed definition to 

eliminate any ambiguities. 

While DOE previously examined the 

issue of EPSs that communicate with 

their loads in its June 1, 2011 rule, only 

recently has it been made aware that 

proprietary communication protocols 

can result in a higher power 

consumption for certain end-use 

consumer products rather than others. 

76 FR at 31752–31753 and 31770– 

31771. Additionally, DOE believes that 

manufacturers may list multiple output 

voltages, multiple output currents, and/ 

or multiple output powers to categorize 

all the potential states of the EPS, 

making the correct testing and 

certification conditions difficult to 

discern. Such an EPS may provide the 

standard USB protocol ratings of 5 volts 

at 1 amp, but have the capability to 

elevate the charging voltage to 12 volts 

at 1 amp under the right conditions. 

This is only one practical example 

because manufacturers can tailor their 

communication protocols to generate 

multiple voltage, ampere, and output 

power ranges under different operating 

conditions for these types of EPSs. 

While these varying states may result in 

faster charging and increased utility, the 

technology makes testing and 

quantifying the average active-mode 

efficiencies of these devices difficult. 

DOE is seeking input regarding how 

adaptive EPSs should be tested and 

certified. Specifically, DOE is seeking 

input on how to determine the loading 

conditions in which to test these EPSs. 

Since adaptive EPSs can be used to 

power other devices that are not capable 

of communicating with a load, it is 

important to consider the efficiency of 

the EPS when load-communicating does 

not occur. However, when the EPS 

communicates with a load and varies 

the output voltage or current to decrease 

an end-use product’s charging time, the 

test procedure should be able to capture 

the efficiencies at the various output 

conditions in which it will operate. This 

could be performed by conducting the 

test twice at each loading condition— 

once at the highest achievable output 

voltage that is utilized while 

communicating with a load and once at 

the lowest achievable output voltage 

utilized during load communication 

regardless of what may be stated on the 

nameplate in both conditions. Due to 

the nature of EPS design, the points in 

between the highest and lowest output 

voltage will be no less efficient than 

either extreme.5 Therefore, DOE 

proposes to test adaptive EPSs at both 

the highest and lowest voltage it can 

achieve at all measured loading 

conditions with output current greater 

than 0%. DOE has been informed by 

stakeholders that these adaptive EPSs 

will either have multiple voltage and 

current ranges printed on the nameplate 

or may not indicate the operating ranges 

at all. However, DOE seeks comment on 

whether the range of voltages utilized 

while an EPS is communicating with its 

load is printed on the EPS nameplate or 

if there are other methods available to 

determine the highest and lowest 

voltage utilized during load 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61003 

6NRDC: External Power Supplies—Additional 

Efficiency Opportunities, http://www.appliancestandards.org/sites/default/files/Next_Efficiency_

Opportunities_for_External_Power_Supplies_

NRDC.pdf. 

communication, if it is not indicated on 

the nameplate of the EPS. 

DOE also has concerns regarding the 

accuracy and repeatability of no-load 

measurements recorded when testing an 

adaptive EPS. As part of the test 

procedure, DOE requires that an input 

power measurement taken at the 0 

percent loading condition (currently, 

loading condition 5) is measured and 

recorded as no-load mode power 

consumption. Appendix Z defines noload mode as the mode of operation 

when an EPS is connected to the main 

electricity supply and the output is (or 

‘‘all outputs are’’ for a multiple-voltage 

EPS) not connected to a load (or ‘‘loads’’ 

for a multiple-voltage EPS). However, 

the test procedure for single-voltage 

EPSs does not instruct technicians to 

explicitly remove any external loads or 

to put the EPS into ‘‘no-load mode’’ in 

order to conduct the test at a 0% loading 

condition. The language in the test 

procedure only states that the load must 

be decreased to zero percent and the AC 

input power must be recorded. This 

ambiguity would permit the test to be 

conducted by either removing the load 

in order to achieve the 0% loading 

condition or decreasing the current 

demand to 0% while the test load is still 

physically connected. As such, 

variability in test measurements may 

arise when testing adaptive EPSs 

because the output voltage fluctuates 

according to the communication 

between the EPS and the end-use 

product. 

Based on its examination of a variety 

of adaptive EPSs and their 

accompanying end-use products, DOE 

suspects that if the load is not 

disconnected from the EPS entirely, but 

instead, the current demand is 

decreased to zero electronically with the 

load still physically connected, that the 

output voltage may remain artificially 

high and impact the results of the noload power measurement. This higher 

output voltage would not be 

representative of the voltage this EPS 

would operate under in no-load mode, 

because an adaptive EPS would only 

output a higher voltage when requested 

via the adaptive communication 

protocol. 

To clarify the testing methodology for 

all types of EPSs in no-load mode, DOE 

is proposing to add language to the 

single-voltage test procedure stating that 

any EPS under test must be placed into 

no-load mode and any additional single 

connection be disconnected before 

taking a measurement at zero percent 

load. While this language is absent from 

the single-voltage EPS test procedure, 

DOE notes that the test procedure at 

appendix Z already specifically states in 

section 4(b)(i)(A)(6) that any multiplevoltage EPS under test should be placed 

in no-load mode and any additional 

signal connections to the unit be 

disconnected before measuring input 

power at the zero percent loading 

condition. DOE is seeking comment on 

whether such additional clarification is 

also warranted for testing the no-load of 

single-voltage EPSs, including adaptive 

EPSs. 

The additional clarifications DOE is 

proposing in this NOPR for testing 

adaptive EPSs will not alter the current 

methodology for testing active-mode 

efficiency or no-load power. Rather, 

they are meant to provide guidance on 

how to test and certify these EPSs given 

the recent advancements in EPS 

technology. The average active-mode 

efficiency will still be based on the 

average of the four loading conditions 

used to measure single-voltage 

efficiency. Under DOE’s proposal, 

manufacturers of adaptive EPSs will 

generate two average active-mode 

efficiency metrics for each EPS—one 

based on the average of the efficiencies 

recorded at the lowest voltage achieved 

during the charging cycle and one based 

on the average of the efficiencies 

recorded at the highest voltage achieved 

during the charging cycle. This testing 

approach closely parallels DOE’s testing 

approach for switch-selectable EPSs. 

However, unlike switch-selectable EPSs, 

DOE is requiring only one no-load 

power measurement because the EPS 

will be disconnected from any load 

during the measurement and will, as a 

result, not be communicating—thereby 

removing any chance of raising or 

lowering the output voltage. Because 

this approach will yield a static output 

voltage in no-load mode, one no-load 

power measurement for adaptive EPSs 

will be sufficient. As a result, DOE 

proposes to amend 10 CFR 429.37 to 

state that manufacturers will be required 

to submit average active-mode 

efficiencies at both the highest and 

lowest output voltages as well as a 

single no-load power measurement for 

adaptive EPSs. DOE is seeking comment 

on the most appropriate method to 

report and certify adaptive EPSs. 

F. EPS Loading Points 

DOE currently requires that efficiency 

measurements be recorded by 

manufacturers at 0 percent, 25 percent, 

50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent 

of the nameplate output current load. 

See 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix Z. 

The last four measurements are 

averaged to determine the overall activemode efficiency of an EPS. While these 

measurements span the majority of an 

EPS’s loading profile, consumer loads 

are increasingly utilizing standby modes 

to minimize power consumption during 

periods of inactivity, a development that 

has resulted in many EPSs spending 

more time in loading conditions below 

25 percent where the EPS active-mode 

efficiency tends to rapidly decrease due 

to the increase in the ratio of fixed 

losses to the output power. This 

decrease is due in large part to a higher 

loss ratio where the fixed losses 

represent a higher percentage of the 

overall power consumed when 

compared to the output power. 

Regarding these lower load states, 

NRDC noted that industry has already 

performed significant research to 

improve the conversion efficiency of 

EPSs at these states.6 As part of its 

research, NRDC compared a standard 

computer EPS complying with the Level 

V requirements of the international 

efficiency marking protocol against a 

reference design from a major power 

supply integrated circuit manufacturer. 

While the computer EPS and the 

reference design remained relatively 

similar across all the loading points 

considered in the DOE test procedure 

(i.e., 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%), the 

EPSs diverged significantly below 25 

percent load. The reference design 

showed as much as a 25 percent 

increase in active-mode efficiency over 

the computer EPS at loads below those 

required by the EPS test procedure. 

While this is just one example, DOE has 

also been informed by interested parties 

and during manufacturer interviews that 

the industry aims to prevent the energy 

gains made by smarter consumer loads 

from being offset by EPS designs that 

cannot maintain flatter efficiency 

profiles over the full load range. Again, 

as noted by the NRDC, consumer 

products are increasingly spending a 

significant portion of their operating 

time in lower power modes or standby 

states where the EPS load-demand is 

below 25 percent. Since EPS efficiency 

tends to fall off at these lower loads, 

improving the active-mode efficiency of 

EPSs at loading points below 25 percent 

to levels similar to the achievable 

efficiencies at higher loading points 

would create a more constant efficiency 

level, regardless of the load demand. 

This approach will ensure that the 

overall system remains efficient when 

consumer loads fall below a 25 percent 

load rather than relying on an inefficient 

EPS that hampers system efficiency. 

Other standards-setting bodies have 

recognized the potential energy savings 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7European Union: Code of Conduct on External 

Power Supplies Version 5 (available at http://

iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/ energyefficiency/files/code_of_conduct_for_ps_

version_5_-_draft_120919.pdf). 

from reducing lower-load losses. 

Significantly, on October 29, 2013, the 

European Union published Version 5 of 

its Code of Conduct on Energy 

Efficiency of External Power Supplies 

(Code of Conduct).7 That document lays 

out the foundation for a set of voluntary 

guidelines for individual manufacturers 

to meet and includes specifications 

regarding EPS coverage, energy 

efficiency, and monitoring provisions. 

The energy efficiency levels in the Code 

of Conduct have been revised to reflect 

the same four loading point 

measurements required by DOE, but 

also include a separately calculated 

performance level using an additional 

loading point at a lower 10 percent load. 

See European Comm’n, Code of Conduct 

on Energy Efficiency of External Power 

Supplies, Version 5, Annex (Oct. 29, 

2013). The energy efficiency provisions 

are further divided into two groupings— 

Tier 1 and Tier 2. These tiers delineate 

two separate sets of standards with two 

unique effective dates. Tier 1 went into 

effect in January 2014, while the more 

stringent standards in Tier 2 will take 

effect in January 2016. Like DOE’s test 

procedure at Appendix Z, the new Code 

of Conduct provides that manufacturers 

measure the efficiency at each loading 

condition along with a no-load power 

consumption metric in accordance with 

the CEC’s test procedure for single 

voltage EPSs. Also like appendix Z, the 

Code of Conduct’s prescribed energy 

efficiency levels at the specified five 

loading points for both Tier 1 and Tier 

2 rely on equations that generate a 

minimum average active-mode 

efficiency based on the nameplate 

output power of an EPS. 

Although the revised Code of Conduct 

includes the additional loading point 

measurement at 10% load, this data 

point is not included when calculating 

the average active-mode efficiency of a 

given EPS. Instead, the Code of Conduct 

continues to rely on the four loading 

points on which DOE’s standards are 

based—i.e., 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% 

load—for this metric. The Code of 

Conduct sets a separate performance 

standard at 10% load, but, like DOE, 

relies on an equation based on the 

nameplate output power of an EPS to 

determine the minimum applicable 

standard at this loading point. 

Based on the research conducted by 

NRDC and the efforts of the European 

Commission to improve light load 

efficiency, additional energy savings 

opportunities for EPSs may be possible 

given the increase in low-power states 

in smart devices. In order to increase the 

flexibility of the EPS test procedure 

should DOE decide to incorporate such 

a measurement into an efficiency 

standard in the future, DOE proposes to 

add a sixth, optional, loading condition 

at 10 percent of the nameplate output 

current to the EPS test procedure. 

Similar to the power factor 

measurements, recording the activemode efficiency at this loading 

condition would be optional and would 

not be part of the mandatory 

submissions on any certification report. 

Data voluntarily gathered by 

manufacturers at this additional loading 

point could serve to inform DOE on the 

current efficiency landscape of EPSs 

below 25 percent load while also 

attempting to harmonize with the efforts 

of the European Commission. 

While DOE is proposing to add this 

new, but optional, 10% loading point to 

the test procedure, DOE is not proposing 

to use this new loading condition as 

part of the calculation of average-active 

mode efficiency should manufacturers 

decide to record the active-mode 

efficiency at the new loading condition. 

The average-active mode efficiency 

metric will continue to be calculated by 

averaging the efficiencies at the 25%, 

50%, 75%, and 100% loading 

conditions. In the future, DOE may 

consider whether future revisions to the 

energy conservation standards for EPSs 

should include the efficiency at the new 

loading condition either as part of the 

calculation of average active-mode 

efficiency or as a separate independent 

standard. This proposed change will 

have no impact on measuring 

compliance with the current energy 

conservation standards for Class A EPSs 

or the recently promulgated standards 

for direct operation EPSs that 

manufacturers must meet beginning in 

2016. 

No additional testing burden would 

be placed on manufacturers as a result 

of this proposed change because the 

10% loading condition test is optional. 

However, should manufacturers elect to 

make this measurement, DOE believes 

the additional testing burden would be 

minimal. Measuring the efficiency at 

this new loading point would require no 

additional equipment. The tester would 

only have to adjust the resistive or 

electronic load to the correct conditions. 

This additional test would increase the 

overall testing time by no more than ten 

minutes even after adhering to the given 

minute stability criteria at the new load 

condition. Because DOE only requires 

direct meter readings to record the 

measurements, testing at this additional 

loading condition would have a 

minimal increase in burden and 

duration of the test. DOE seeks comment 

on the benefits and burdens of adding 

an additional loading condition to the 

EPS test procedure as an optional 

measurement. The other loading 

conditions will remain the same as has 

been previously stated under this 

proposal. 

G. Energy Conservation Standards 

On February 10, 2014, DOE issued 

new and amended standards for EPSs; 

compliance with these standards is 

required by February 10, 2016. 79 FR 

7845. These new standards will require 

many EPSs already subject to standards 

as Class A EPSs to meet more stringent 

requirements. Additionally, the new 

regulations established efficiency 

standards for some types of EPSs, such 

as multiple-voltage and high power 

EPSs, which had not previously been 

required to meet any efficiency 

standard. In updating these regulations, 

DOE established two new definitions— 

direct operation and indirect operation 

EPSs. As defined in DOE’s regulations at 

10 CFR 430.2, a ‘‘direct operation EPS’’ 

is an EPS that can operate a consumer 

product that is not a battery charger 

without the assistance of a battery, 

whereas an ‘‘indirect operation EPS’’ is 

an EPS that cannot operate a consumer 

product (other than a battery charger) 

without the assistance of a battery. DOE 

intended that these terms be mutually 

exclusive and collectively exhaustive, 

so that any EPS would be either a direct 

or indirect operation EPS, but not both. 

The new regulations required that any 

direct-operation EPS (regardless of 

whether it was also a Class A EPS) 

would have to meet these new 

standards. Any indirect operation EPS 

would not be required to meet the new 

standards, but would still be required to 

comply with the Class A efficiency 

requirements if that EPS meets the 

definition of a Class A EPS. The Class 

A EPS definition is found in 42 U.S.C. 

6291(36). DOE also updated the 

International Efficiency Marking 

Protocol to add a new mark, ‘‘VI,’’ to 

indicate compliance with the new 

efficiency requirements established for 

direct operation EPSs. 

The following chart summarizes the 

energy conservation standards and 

marking requirements based on whether 

the EPS is (1) a Class A or non-Class A 

EPS and (2) direct or indirect operation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61005 

8Two exclusions apply to the Class A External 

Power Supply definition. Devices that require 

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 devices that power the 

charger of a detachable battery pack or charge the 

battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor 

operated are not considered Class A External Power 

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

TABLE III–2—APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CLASS A AND NON-CLASS A EPSS

Class A EPS Non-Class A EPS 

Direct Operation EPS ......................................... Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii) .................... Level VI: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii). 

Indirect Operation EPS ...................................... Level IV: 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(i) ..................... No Standards. 

To clarify these requirements, DOE is 

proposing to add the above table to a 

new 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(iii). 

H. Indirect Operation EPSs 

To distinguish between a direct and 

indirect operation EPS, the definition of 

an indirect operation EPS includes a 

specific method to determine whether 

an EPS is an indirect operation EPS. 

First, if the EPS can be connected to a 

battery-operated consumer product with 

removable batteries, then the batteries 

should be removed. Then, the EPS 

should be connected to mains power 

and an attempt to operate the product 

should be made. If the product cannot 

operate without the batteries, it is an 

indirect operation EPS. If the batteries 

cannot be removed, then the time 

necessary for a product in ‘‘off-mode’’ to 

turn on and become operational should 

be recorded when (1) the battery is 

completely charged and (2) when the 

battery is completely discharged. If the 

difference in these two conditions is 

greater than 5 seconds, then the EPS is 

an indirect operation EPS. 

Stakeholders asked whether an EPS 

that can be used with multiple end-use 

applications—some of which are 

operated directly and others 

indirectly—would be treated by DOE as 

an indirect or direct operation EPS. So 

long as an EPS can operate any 

consumer product directly, DOE 

considers it to be a direct operation EPS. 

If an EPS is shipped with a consumer 

product that the EPS can only operate 

indirectly, but that same EPS can also be 

used to directly operate another 

consumer product, DOE would still 

consider that EPS to be a direct 

operation EPS and subject to the 

applicable direct operation EPS 

efficiency standards. 

Stakeholders also asked whether an 

EPS that can operate a battery charger 

contained in a separate physical 

enclosure from the end-use product is 

considered an indirect or direct 

operation EPS. DOE notes that a battery 

charger is considered a consumer 

product in and of itself, and DOE is 

currently undertaking a rulemaking to 

consider establishing efficiency 

standards for battery chargers. With this 

in mind, DOE excluded battery chargers 

as a type of consumer product that a 

direct operation EPS can operate as part 

of the definition for a direct operation 

EPS in the external power supply and 

battery charger NOPR published on 

March 27, 2012. See 77 FR 18478. This 

was due in large part to the fact that the 

efficiency of an EPS that can only 

operate a battery charger, but not any 

other consumer product, may be 

covered by future efficiency standards 

for battery chargers. Therefore, an EPS 

that can only operate a battery charger 

in a separate physical enclosure from 

the end-use product, but not any other 

consumer product, would not be 

considered a direct operation EPS, and 

would therefore, not be subject to the 

efficiency standards for direct operation 

EPSs. See 79 FR at 7929. DOE is 

proposing to modify the indirect 

operation EPS definition to clearly 

include within its scope those EPSs that 

can only operate battery chargers 

contained in physical enclosures 

separate from the end-use products (but 

not other consumer products). The 

modified definition would specify that 

an indirect operation EPS is an EPS that 

(1) cannot operate a consumer product 

(that is not a battery charger) without 

the assistance of a battery or (2) solely 

provides power to a battery charger that 

is contained in a separate physical 

enclosure from the end-use product. 

DOE seeks feedback on this proposed 

amendment. 

I. Scope of Coverage 

Congress established the definition of 

an external power supply to mean ‘‘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’’ (10 CFR 430.2). This definition 

outlines the distinguishing criteria for a 

product to be considered an EPS and, 

therefore, to be considered a covered 

product. While a covered product may 

be subject to energy conservation 

standards, DOE has established 

standards only for certain types of EPSs 

to date. So, while an EPS is a covered 

product, not all EPSs are subject to 

energy conservation standards. 

Currently, a Class A EPS must meet the 

standards prescribed in 10 CFR 430.32. 

Beginning in 2016, energy conservation 

standards will also apply to direct 

operation EPSs. 

Any product that meets the statutory 

definition of a Class A external power 

supply is currently subject to the noload mode power and average activemode efficiency requirements in 10 CFR 

430.32(w). This definition specifies that 

a Class A EPS is one with the following 

six characteristics: 8

• Designed to convert line voltage AC 

input into lower voltage AC or DC 

output; 

• able to convert to only 1 AC or DC 

output voltage at a time; 

• sold with, or intended to be used 

with, a separate end-use product that 

constitutes the primary load; 

• contained in a separate physical 

enclosure from the end-use product; 

• connected to the end-use product 

via a removable or hard-wired male/

female electrical connection, cable, 

cord, or other wiring; and 

• nameplate output power that is less 

than or equal to 250 watts. 

DOE has received numerous inquiries 

from manufacturers requesting 

additional guidance on applying these 

six criteria. In order to ensure clarity 

and consistency for stakeholders and 

manufacturers, the following 

subsections discuss some of the most 

commonly asked questions about the 

definition of a Class A EPS. 

1. Solid State Lighting 

DOE has received specific inquiries 

from manufacturers asking whether 

‘‘transformers’’ used with solid state 

lighting (SSL), such as LED drivers used 

for landscape lighting, lighting strings, 

portable luminaries, and other lighting 

applications are subject to the Class A 

external power supply energy 

conservation standards. Provided the 

product meets all six characteristics of 

a Class A EPS, then it would be subject 

to the Class A EPS energy conservation 

standards, regardless of the end-use 

application. As discussed in the 

February 10, 2014 final rule, 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. 79 FR 7845. As such, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office 

(EERE): International Efficiency Marking Protocol 

for External Power Supplies Version 3.0 (available 

at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0218). 

DOE believes that many drivers, or 

transformers, used for SSL applications 

would meet the definition of a Class A 

EPS and would therefore be subject to 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards. 

2. Convert to Only One AC or DC 

Output Voltage at the Same Time 

DOE has also received questions 

related to the Class A EPS criterion 

specifying that a given device can 

‘‘convert to only AC or DC output 

voltage at a time’’. This requirement 

would be met if an EPS can provide two 

or more outputs at the same voltage at 

the same time or if it can provide two 

or more different output voltages, but 

not at the same time. These criteria 

would not be met if the EPS can provide 

more than one nominal lower-voltage 

AC or DC output at the same time; such 

an EPS would not be considered a Class 

A EPS, but would be considered a 

multiple-voltage EPS because it is 

designed to convert line voltage AC 

input into more than one simultaneous 

lower-voltage output. Direct operation 

multiple-voltage EPSs are subject to 

conservation standards beginning in 

2016. 

3. Power Over Ethernet 

DOE has also been asked about how 

the criterion requiring that a Class A 

EPS be connected to the end-use 

product via a removable or hard-wired 

male/female electrical connection, 

cable, cord, or other wiring would apply 

to a Power over Ethernet (PoE) device. 

PoE describes a system which passes 

electrical power along with data on 

Ethernet cabling allowing a single cable 

to provide both data connection and 

electrical power. Specifically, 

stakeholders have asked if PoE Injectors, 

components that provide power to an 

Ethernet cable, or EPSs that are 

connected to the end-use product by an 

Ethernet cable would be considered 

Class A external power supplies. An 

EPS may be considered a Class A EPS 

if it connects to the end-use application 

using any type of electrical connection, 

cable, cord, or other wiring, including 

both removable and hard-wired 

connections. An Ethernet cable would 

meet these criteria, so an EPS that 

connects to the end-use product via an 

Ethernet cable would still be considered 

a Class A EPS and would be subject to 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards if it meets the other five 

criteria of a Class A EPS. 

4. Security or Life Safety Alarm or 

Surveillance Systems 

Finally, DOE has received questions 

on the exemption from the no-load 

mode energy consumption standards for 

certain EPSs manufactured before July 

1, 2017. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E), 

an EPS that (1) is an AC-to-AC EPS; (2) 

has a nameplate output of 20 watts or 

more, and (3) is certified to the 

Secretary as being designed to be 

connected to a security or life safety 

alarm or surveillance system component 

does not have the meet the no-load 

mode requirements, provided it is 

manufactured before July 1, 2017 and is 

marked in accordance with the 

International Efficiency Marketing 

Protocol.9 See also 10 CFR 430.32(w)(5) 

(codifying the statutory requirements of 

42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)). Per 10 CFR 

430.2, a security or life safety alarm or 

surveillance system means equipment 

designed and marketed to perform 

certain functions on a continuous basis, 

such as monitoring intrusion to real 

property, providing notification of 

threats to life safety or physical 

property, controlling access to real 

property or physical assets, or 

preventing unauthorized removal of 

physical assets. The term security or life 

safety alarm or surveillance system does 

not include any product with a 

principal function other than life safety, 

security, or surveillance that is designed 

and marketed with a built-in alarm or 

theft-deterrent feature or does not 

operate necessarily and continuously in 

active mode. 

Examples of products that would 

meet this definition of security or life 

safety alarm or surveillance systems 

include home security system consoles, 

keyless entry electronic door locks, and 

smoke detectors because these products 

are designed and marketed to 

continuously monitor intrusion or 

access to real property, control access to 

property, and monitor threats to real 

property. On the other hand, landscape 

lighting with motion sensors, video 

cameras, and smart phones with theft 

deterrent features are examples of 

products with principal functions other 

than life safety, security, or surveillance 

that are designed and marketed with 

built-in alarm or theft deterrent features 

or that do not operate necessarily and 

continuously in active mode. These 

products would not be exempt from the 

no-load mode energy consumption 

standards. It should be noted that EPSs 

that receive the exemption are still 

required to meet the average activemode efficiency requirements and that 

this exemption expires on July 1, 2017, 

so EPSs manufactured after this date 

will also be required to comply with the 

applicable no-load limits. 

J. Sampling Plan 

For certification and compliance, 

manufacturers are required to rate each 

basic model according to the sampling 

provisions specified in 10 CFR Part 429. 

The sampling plan for Class A EPSs can 

be found in 10 CFR 429.37, which 

requires that any represented value of 

the estimated energy consumption of a 

basic model of a Class A EPS for which 

consumers would favor a lower value 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of the mean of the sample or the 

upper 97.5 percent confidence limit of 

the true mean divided by 1.05. DOE is 

also proposing to require manufacturers 

to provide the output current in ampere 

(A), which is currently only required if 

that information is not provided on the 

nameplate. 

Given that the recent energy 

conservation standards rule applies to 

both Class A EPSs and direct operation 

EPSs that do not meet the Class A 

definition, there is no longer a need to 

differentiate between Class A and nonClass A EPSs for the purposes of part 

429. Instead, DOE proposes to amend 10 

CFR 429.37 so that the sampling plan, 

which currently applies only to Class A 

EPSs, would be applied to any EPS 

subject to energy conservation 

standards. DOE seeks comment on this 

proposal to apply the sampling plan 

requirements to all EPSs subject to an 

energy conservation standard, regardless 

of whether they meet the Class A 

definition. 

K. Effective Date and Compliance Date 

of Test Procedure 

If adopted, the effective date for this 

test procedure would be 30 days after 

publication of the test procedure final 

rule in the Federal Register. At that 

time, the new metrics and any other 

measure of energy consumption relying 

on these metrics may be represented 

pursuant to the final rule. Consistent 

with 42 U.S.C. 6293(c), energy 

consumption or efficiency 

representations by manufacturers must 

be based on the new test procedure and 

sampling plans starting 180 days after 

the date of publication of the test 

procedure final rule. Starting on that 

date, any such representations, 

including those made on marketing 

materials, Web sites (including 

qualification with a voluntary or State 

program), and product labels would be 

based on results generated using the 

proposed procedure as well as the 

sampling plan in 10 CFR part 429. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61007 

L. Impacts From the Test Procedure 

When proposing to amend a test 

procedure, DOE typically determines 

the extent to which, if any, the proposed 

test procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency of any covered 

product when compared to the existing 

test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If 

DOE determines that the amended test 

procedure would alter the measured 

efficiency of a covered product to a 

significant extent, DOE would amend 

the applicable energy conservation 

standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2)). 

The proposed amendments would not 

alter the measured efficiency of EPSs. 

DOE expects that the rated values of 

EPSs tested under the current test 

method codified in Appendix Z would 

still be obtained when tested using 

today’s proposed method because the 

proposal is not modifying the methods 

used to measure or calculate the rated 

values of an EPS that are used to 

determine whether that EPS would 

satisfy the regulatory conservation 

standards for average active-mode 

efficiency and no-load power. In other 

words, there should be no change in the 

measured results under the proposal. 

Rather, the proposed amendments 

would (1) harmonize DOE’s procedure 

with the latest version of IEC 62301 

concerning the measurement equipment 

resolution and measurement 

uncertainties; (2) define and clarify how 

to test adaptive EPSs; (3) clarify the 

testing configurations to avoid 

introducing additional losses in testing 

cables; (4) clarify the testing of EPSs that 

are not capable of being tested at one or 

more loading conditions; (5) add an 

optional test for active-mode efficiency 

measurements at a 10 percent loading 

condition for both single-voltage and 

multiple-voltage EPSs; (6) add an 

optional measurement for output power 

factor; and (7) revise the sampling plan 

to include EPSs that will be covered by 

Federal efficiency standards as of 2016. 

In DOE’s view, none of the proposed 

modifications will impact the measured 

energy use of tested EPSs because the 

fundamental testing methodology and 

certification process remains 

unchanged—i.e., the calculation of 

average active-mode efficiency or noload power consumption would remain 

unchanged. Additionally, DOE’s 

proposed steps to address how to 

connect test equipment to an EPS to 

avoid introducing electrical energy 

losses would clarify the test procedure 

to ensure accurate and repeatable 

results. 

DOE does not anticipate that the 

additional burden posed by these 

proposed changes, if any, are likely to 

be significant. None of these proposed 

amendments would involve changing 

the necessary testing equipment or add 

significant increases in testing time. 

Measuring the active-mode efficiency of 

the new 10-percent loading condition is 

optional. But even if this test is 

performed, it will not require any 

additional equipment that would be 

unnecessary for measuring the activemode efficiency of the other loading 

conditions and will increase the total 

testing time for each unit by 

approximately 10 minutes. Similarly, 

the revised uncertainty and resolution 

requirements will not mandate any 

changes to the necessary testing 

equipment. 

DOE does not believe the updated 

procedure will impose increased testing 

burden or alter the measured average 

active-mode efficiency or no-load 

power. While the proposed amendments 

would be required to be used beginning 

180 days after publication of a final rule, 

manufacturers may begin using the 

amended test procedure immediately 

after a final rule is published. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

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

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

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 (IFRA) for any rule 

that by law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

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. 

DOE reviewed the proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. This proposed rule prescribes 

certain limited clarifying amendments 

to an already-existing test procedure 

that will help manufacturers and testing 

laboratories to consistently conduct that 

procedure when measuring the energy 

efficiency of an EPS, including in those 

instances where compliance with the 

applicable Federal energy conservation 

is being assessed. DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the proposed rule would 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

DOE notes that there are no domestic 

manufacturers of EPSs. Given the 

absence of any domestic manufacturers 

of these products, there are no small 

business impacts to evaluate for 

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

In addition, DOE expects any 

potential impact from its proposal to be 

minimal. As noted earlier, DOE’s EPS 

test procedure has existed since 2005 

and the modest clarifications in the 

proposal are unlikely to create a burden 

on any manufacturers. These proposed 

revisions, if adopted, would harmonize 

the instrumentation resolution and 

uncertainty requirements with the 

second edition of the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

62301 standard when measuring 

standby power along with other 

international standards programs. They 

would also include modifications to the 

measurements specified by IEC 62301, 

including changes that would address 

active-mode efficiency loading points 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and require that power factor be 

recorded for each loading condition. 

The proposal would also clarify certain 

testing set-up requirements. These 

updates would not are expected to 

increase the testing burden on EPS 

manufacturers. 

For these reasons, DOE certifies that 

the proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE will transmit the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of EPS 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. DOE 

has established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including external power supplies. (76 

FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)) 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 

DOE has determined that this 

proposal, which would add clarifying 

amendments to an existing test 

procedure, falls into a class of actions 

that are categorically excluded from 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this proposed rule 

would amend the existing test 

procedures without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, would not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Pub. L. No. 104–4, sec. 

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

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)–(b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://energy.gov/gc/office-generalVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Oct 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FMhttp://energy.gov/gc/office-general- \09OCP1.SGM 09OCP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61009 

counsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

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

this proposed rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action to amend the 

test procedure for measuring the energy 

efficiency of external power supplies is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

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

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

Certain of the proposed amendments 

would incorporate testing methods 

contained in the following standard: IEC 

Standard 62301 ‘‘Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power.’’ It would also incorporate a 

testing method developed by the State 

of California, section 1604(u)(1) of the 

CEC 2007 Appliance Efficiency 

Regulations. DOE has evaluated these 

testing standards and tentatively 

concludes that the IEC standard 

complies with the requirements of 

section 32(b) of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act, (i.e., that they were 

developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review). DOE will 

consult with the Attorney General and 

the Chairman of the FTC concerning the 

impact of these test procedures on 

competition, prior to prescribing a final 

rule. 

V. Public Participation 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

one copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE seeks comment on its proposal 

to incorporate the accuracy and 

precision requirements found in the 

current version of IEC 62301 (2nd ed.) 

as part of DOE’s external power supply 

test procedure. Would the incorporation 

of these requirements be sufficient to 

ensure that the measurements obtained 

during testing when following the 

procedure are accurate, consistent, and 

repeatable? What potential problems, if 

any, could occur if DOE were to 

incorporate these requirements into its 

test procedure? 

2. DOE seeks comment on its 

proposed clarification regarding the test 

set-up when measuring output power 

with a combination of a voltmeter and 

ammeter. Is the additional language 

sufficient to ensure that tests are 

repeatable and that the testing set-up is 

unambiguous? Are there any potential 

problems with mandating this type of 

connection that could negatively impact 

the efficiency measurement and 

ultimately a manufacturer’s ability to 

comply with the federal standard? 

3. DOE seeks comment on allowing 

manufacturers with products that limit 

the current under certain loading 

conditions to certify their products 

using an average efficiency metric of all 

the load conditions in the DOE test 

procedure that can be tested. Would 

allowing manufacturers to certify their 

products in this fashion lead to gaming 

of the test procedure or a circumvention 

of the standard? Would issuing waivers 

on a case-by-case basis be a preferable 

alternative? What is the likelihood that 

manufacturers will design around 

certain loading conditions to take 

advantage of this new approach in order 

to more easily comply with the federal 

standard? 

4. DOE seeks comment on its proposal 

to optionally measure power factor at 

each loading condition. Does this put 

unnecessary additional burden on 

manufacturers for testing? Does DOE 

need to establish a methodology for 

measuring power factor beyond what is 

outlined in IEC 62301 (2nd Ed.)? How 

significant is power factor in 

determining the overall efficiency of an 

EPS? Would power factor measurements 

be repeatable? 

5. DOE seeks comment on whether 

the proposed definition of an adaptive 

external power supply accurately 

describes this new type of EPS. Is the 

definition too broad such that other 

single-voltage operation EPSs or battery 

chargers may now be considered 

adaptive EPSs? Is there a more 

appropriate term than ‘‘adaptive’’? 

6. DOE seeks comment on its 

proposed approach to testing adaptive 

EPSs. Should such products be 

considered EPSs? Can these types of 

EPSs be tested using a test jig provided 

by the manufacturer? If so, what output 

power rating should be considered for 

certification? If not, are there methods 

DOE should consider to improve the test 

procedure in regards to EPSs that 

communicate with their loads? 

7. DOE seeks comment on how to 

determine the highest and lowest 

voltages on adaptive EPSs. Should these 

numbers be required for submission 

during certification? Should the test 

procedure be modified to measure such 

values? 

8. DOE is seeking comment on adding 

language to clarify the testing set-up at 

0 percent load. Is stating that the EPS 

must be in no-load mode before the EPS 

is tested at 0 percent load necessary? 

For adaptive EPSs, is there potential to 

capture different results when the EPS 

is disconnected versus if the load was 

simply reduced to zero but still 

physically connected to the output of 

the EPS? 

9. DOE seeks comment on how to rate 

and certify adaptive EPSs. Is requiring 

that manufacturers submit data at both 

voltage extremes overly burdensome? 

Are there any technical limitations to 

requiring that these measurements be 

taken and submitted? Are there more 

appropriate ways of rating such EPSs? 

10. DOE seeks comment on including 

an additional, optional loading 

condition at 10 percent of the rated 

nameplate output power of the unit 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61011 

under test in the EPS test procedure. 

Would testing an EPS at 10 percent load 

more completely represent the 

achievable efficiencies of the EPS under 

test? Would the efficiencies recorded at 

this loading point be significantly lower 

from those taken at the loading points 

in the current DOE test procedure? 

11. DOE seeks comment on its 

proposed revision to the definition of 

‘‘indirect operation external power 

supply’’. Do these changes more 

accurately define what is meant by an 

indirect operation EPS? Is there the 

potential for this new definition to 

increase the scope of coverage of the 

EPS standard? 

12. DOE seeks comment on creating a 

single sampling plan for both Class A 

and non-Class A EPSs. Is there any 

reason that all EPSs within the scope of 

federal standard should not be subject to 

the same sampling requirements? Are 

the manufacturing variations somehow 

different between different groups of 

EPSs that would necessitate separate 

sampling requirements? 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 

forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.37 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 429.37 External Power Supplies. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: 

(i) External power supplies: The 

average active mode efficiency as a 

percent (%), no-load mode power 

consumption in watts (W), nameplate 

output power in watts (W), and the 

output current in amperes (A) of the 

basic model or the output current in 

amperes (A) of the highest- and lowestvoltage models within the external 

power supply design family. 

(ii) Switch-selectable single-voltage 

external power supplies: The average 

active mode efficiency as a percentage 

(%) value, no-load mode power 

consumption in watts (W), at the lowest 

and highest selectable output voltages, 

nameplate output power in watts (W), 

and the output current in amperes (A). 

(iii) Adaptive single-voltage external 

power supplies: The average active 

mode efficiency at the highest 

achievable output voltage as a 

percentage (%) value, the average active 

mode efficiency at the lowest achievable 

output voltage as a percentage (%) 

value, nameplate output power in watts 

(W), and the output current in amperes 

(A) at the highest and lowest achievable 

output voltages. No-load mode power 

consumption in watts (W). 

(iv) External power supplies that are 

exempt from no-load mode 

requirements under § 430.32(w)(1)(iii): 

A statement that the product is designed 

to be connected to a security or life 

safety alarm or surveillance system 

component, the average active mode 

efficiency as a percentage (%) value, the 

nameplate output power in watts (W), 

and the certification report must also 

include the output current in amperes 

(A) of the basic model or the output 

current in amperes (A) of the highestand lowest-voltage models within the 

external power supply design family. 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 4. Section 430.2 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of the 

definition of ‘‘Indirect operation 

external power supply’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Indirect operation external power 

supply means an EPS 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, or an EPS that solely 

provides power to a battery charger that 

is contained in a separate physical 

enclosure from the end-use product: 

* * * * * 

§ 430.3 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 430.3 is amended by 

removing from paragraph (o)(4), ‘‘and 

X’’ and adding ‘‘X, and Z’’ in its place. 

■ 6. Section 430.32 is amended by 

adding paragraph (w)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(w) * * * 

(iii) The following table summarizes 

the energy conservation standards that 

are applicable to external power 

supplies beginning on February 10, 

2016. 

Class A EPS Non-Class A EPS 

Direct Operation EPS .................................................................................. Level VI: ......................................

10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii) ..............

Level VI: 

10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii). 

Indirect Operation EPS ................................................................................ Level IV: ......................................

10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(i) ...............

No Standards. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Appendix Z to subpart B of part 430 

is amended: 

■ a. In section 2., Definitions, by 

■ ii. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and 

(e) as (e) and (f), and paragraphs (f) 

through (x) as paragraphs (h) through 

(z), respectively; and 

■ iii. Adding new paragraphs (d) and 

(g); 

■ b. In section 3, Test Apparatus and 

General Instructions, by 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (a), and 

(b)(i)(A); and 

■ ii. Removing paragraphs (b)(i)(B) and 

(b)(i)(C); 

■ c. In section 4, Test Measurement, by: 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (a)(i), and 

(a)(ii); 

■ ii. Adding a new paragraph (a)(i)(D); 

and 

■ iii. Revising paragraphs (b)(i)(A)(3), 

(b)(i)(A)(5), (b)(i)(A)(6), (b)(i)(B)(2), 

(b)(i)(C), (b)(i)(E), (b)(i)(F), and (b)(ii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of External Power 

Supplies 

* * * * * 

2. Definitions. * * * 

* * * * * 

(d) Adaptive external power supply means 

an external power supply that can alter its 

output voltage during active mode based on 

an established communication protocol with 

the end-use application without any usergenerated action. 

* * * * * 

(g) Average Active Mode Efficiency means 

the average of the loading conditions (100 

percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 

percent of its nameplate output current) for 

which it can sustain the output current. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions: 

(a) Single-Voltage External Power Supply. 

The test apparatus, standard testing 

conditions, and instructions for testing 

external power supplies shall conform to the 

requirements specified in section 4, ‘‘General 

Conditions for Measurement,’’ of the CEC’s 

‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External AC–DC 

and AC–AC Power Supplies,’’ August 11, 

2004, (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) 

with the following two exceptions. 

(i) In section 4.b of the CEC test method, 

‘‘Measuring Equipment’’, measurements shall 

conform to the uncertainty requirements 

specified in section 4.4.1 of the second 

edition of IEC 62301 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3). 

(ii) When following section 4.d of the CEC 

test method, ‘‘Test Voltage’’, the applied test 

voltage shall only be 115 volts, 60 Hz. 

(b) Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply. * * * 

(i) Verifying Accuracy and Precision of 

Measuring Equipment 

(A) Any power measurements recorded, as 

well as any power measurement equipment 

utilized for testing, shall conform to the 

uncertainty and resolution requirements 

outlined in Section 4, ‘‘General conditions 

for measurements’’, as well as Annexes B, 

‘‘Notes on the measurement of low power 

modes’’, and D, ‘‘Determination of 

uncertainty of measurement’’, of IEC 62301 

(2nd Ed.) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3). 

* * * * * 

4. Test Measurement: 

(a) * * * 

(i) Standby Mode and Active Mode 

Measurement — When measuring standby 

mode (i.e., no-load mode) energy 

consumption and active mode efficiency, 

follow the steps specified in section 5, 

‘‘Measurement Approach’’ of the CEC’s ‘‘Test 

Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency 

of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac 

Power Supplies,’’ August 11, 2004, 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) 

EXCEPT use the loading conditions listed in 

Table 1 of this section. Power factor may be 

measured at each Loading Condition (1, 2, 3, 

4, and 5 in Table 1 of this section) and be 

recorded separately. For Loading Condition 

6, place the unit under test in no-load mode, 

disconnect any additional signal connections 

to the unit under test, and measure input 

power. In section 5.b, the loading conditions 

are: 

TABLE 1—LOADING CONDITIONS FOR A

SINGLE-VOLTAGE UNIT UNDER TEST

Percentage of Nameplate Output Current 

Load Condition 

1.

100% of Nameplate Output 

Current ± 2% 

Load Condition 

2.

75% of Nameplate Output 

Current ± 2%. 

Load Condition 

3.

50% of Nameplate Output 

Current ± 2%. 

Load Condition 

4.

25% of Nameplate Output 

Current ± 2%. 

Load Condition 

5.

10% of Nameplate Output 

Current ± 2% (optional). 

Load Condition 

6.

0%. 

Test switch-selectable single-voltage 

external power supplies twice—once at the 

highest nameplate output voltage and once at 

the lowest. Test adaptive external power 

supplies twice—once at the highest 

achievable output voltage and once at the 

lowest. Any additional metering equipment 

such as voltmeters and/or ammeters used in 

conjunction with resistive or electronic loads 

as described in section 5.c must be connected 

directly to the end of the output cable of the 

UUT. 

* * * * * 

(D) If an external power supply cannot 

sustain output at one or more of loading 

conditions 1–4 as specified in Table 1 of this 

section, the external power supply should 

only be tested at the loading conditions for 

which it can sustain output. In these cases, 

the average active-mode efficiency shall be 

the average of the loading conditions for 

which it can sustain the output. In the case 

where the external power supply lists both 

an instantaneous and continuous output 

current, it shall be tested at the continuous 

condition only. 

(ii) Off-Mode Measurement—If the external 

power supply unit under test incorporates 

manual on-off switches, the unit under test 

shall be placed in off mode, and its power 

consumption in off mode measured and 

recorded. The measurement of the off mode 

energy consumption shall conform to the 

requirements specified in section 5, 

‘‘Measurement Approach,’’ of the CEC’s 

‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc 

and Ac-Ac Power Supplies,’’ August 11, 2004 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3), with 

two exceptions. In section 5.a, ‘‘Preparing 

UUT [Unit Under Test] for Test,’’ all manual 

on-off switches shall be placed in the ‘‘off’’ 

position for the measurement. In section 5.d, 

‘‘Testing Sequence,’’ the technician shall 

consider the UUT stable if, over 5 minutes 

with samples taken at least once every 

second, the AC input power does not drift 

from the maximum value observed by more 

than 1 percent or 50 milliwatts, whichever is 

greater. The only loading condition that will 

be measured for off mode is ‘‘Load Condition 

6’’ in Table 1 of this appendix. for switchselectable single-voltage external power 

supplies, measure the off mode power 

consumption twice— once at the highest 

nameplate output voltage and once at the 

lowest. 

(b) Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply. * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(3) After this warm-up period, the 

technician shall monitor AC input power for 

a period of 5 minutes to assess the stability 

of the unit under test. If the power level does 

not drift by more than 1 percent from the 

maximum value observed, the unit under test 

can be considered stable and measurements 

can be recorded at the end of the 5-minute 

period. Measurements at subsequent loading 

conditions, listed in Table 2 of this section, 

can then be conducted under the same 5- 

minute stability instructions. Only one 

warm-up period of 30 minutes is required for 

each unit under test at the beginning of the 

test procedure. 

* * * * * 

(5) The unit under test shall be tested at 

the loading conditions listed in Table 2 of 

this section, de-rated per the proportional 

allocation method presented in the 

subsection immediately following Table 2. 

TABLE 2—LOADING CONDITIONS FOR A

MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE UNIT UNDER TEST

Percentage of Nameplate Output Current 

Load Condition 

1.

100% of De-rated Nameplate Output Current ± 

2%. 

Load Condition 

2.

75% of De-rated Nameplate 

Output Current ± 2%. 

Load Condition 

3.

50% of De-rated Nameplate 

Output Current ± 2%. 

Load Condition 

4.

25% of De-rated Nameplate 

Output Current ± 2%. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61013 

TABLE 2—LOADING CONDITIONS FOR A

MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE UNIT UNDER

TEST—Continued 

Load Condition 

5.

10% of De-rated Nameplate 

Output Current ± 2% (optional). 

Load Condition 

6.

0%. 

(6) Input and output power measurements 

shall be conducted in sequence from Loading 

Condition 1 to Loading Condition 5, as 

indicated in Table 2 of this section. For 

Loading Condition 6, place the unit under 

test in no-load mode, disconnect any 

additional signal connections to the unit 

under test, and measure input power. 

(B) * * * 

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

nameplate output current does not exceed 

the overall nameplate output power for the 

power supply. In this case, each output bus 

will simply be loaded to the percentages of 

its nameplate output current listed in Table 

2 of this section. However, if D <1, it is an 

indication that loading each bus to its 

nameplate output current will exceed the 

overall nameplate output power for the 

power supply. In this case, and at each 

loading condition, each output bus will be 

loaded to the appropriate percentage of its 

nameplate output current listed in Table 2, 

multiplied by the derating factor D. 

(C) Minimum output current requirements. 

Depending on their application, some 

multiple-voltage power supplies may require 

a minimum output current for each output 

bus of the power supply for correct 

operation. In these cases, ensure that the load 

current for each output at Loading Condition 

4 in Table 2 of this section is greater than the 

minimum output current requirement. Thus, 

if the test method’s calculated load current 

for a given voltage bus is lower than the 

minimum output current requirement, the 

minimum output current must be used to 

load the bus. This load current shall be 

recorded in the test report. 

* * * * * 

(E) Efficiency calculation and data 

recordation. The efficiency of a unit under 

test shall be calculated by dividing the 

measured active output power of that unit at 

a given loading condition by the active AC 

input power measured at that loading 

condition. The average active-mode 

efficiency of the unit shall be calculated by 

averaging the efficiency of the unit under test 

as calculated at Loading Conditions 1 

through 4, unless output cannot be sustained 

at one of those loading conditions. In that 

case, average-active mode efficiency is 

calculated as described in paragraph (a)(i)(D) 

of this section. Additionally, an optional 

calculation and individual recording of the 

efficiency at Loading Condition 5 (specified 

in Table 2 in paragraph (b)(i)A)(5) of this 

section) may also be performed. Power factor 

for Loading Conditions 1 through 5 (as 

specified under the same Table 2) may also 

be recorded, but these measurements are not 

mandatory. The efficiency at each loading 

condition and the power factor at each 

loading condition shall be individually 

recorded. 

(F) Power consumption calculation. Power 

consumption of the unit under test at 

Loading Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is the 

difference between the active output power 

at that Loading Condition and the active AC 

input power at that Loading Condition. The 

power consumption of Loading Condition 6 

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

power at that Loading Condition. 

(ii) Off Mode Measurement—If the 

multiple-voltage external power supply unit 

under test incorporates any on-off switches, 

the unit under test shall be placed in off 

mode and its power consumption in off mode 

measured and recorded. The measurement of 

the off mode energy consumption shall 

conform to the requirements specified in 

paragraph (b)(i) of this section. The only 

loading condition that will be measured for 

off mode is ‘‘Loading Condition 6’’ in 

paragraph (b)(i)(A), ‘‘Loading conditions and 

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

position for this measurement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24180 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

14 CFR Parts 1260 and 1274 

RIN 2700–AE12 

Removal of Procedures for Delegation 

of Administration of Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: NASA hereby provides notice 

of the cancellation of a proposed rule 

without further action. 

DATES: The proposed rule published in 

the Federal Register of November 14, 

2013 (78 FR 68376) is withdrawn as of 

October 9, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leigh Pomponio, NASA, Office of 

Procurement, Contract Management 

Division (Suite 2P77), 300 E Street SW., 

Washington DC, 30546–0001; email: 

leigh.pomponio@nasa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On November 14, 2013, NASA 

published a proposed rule (78 FR 

68376) to remove internal procedures 

for delegation of grant administration 

from the regulation at 14 CFR 1260.70 

and 1274.301. The action was published 

with an incorrect RIN number (2700– 

AE11). On December 26, 2013, a 

correction was published (78 FR 78305) 

to indicate that the correct RIN number 

is 2700–AE12. No public comments 

were received on the proposed rule. 

NASA will not proceed to finalize this 

action at this time. NASA is currently 

preparing guidance and regulations to 

implement OMB’s Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards (78 FR 78589, Dec 26, 

2013). Because implementation of 

OMB’s guidance will necessitate major 

changes to NASA’s Grant Handbook, 

NASA will make changes to internal 

delegation of administration procedures 

concurrent with or following the 

implementation of OMB’s uniform 

requirements. 

Cynthia Boots, 

Alternate Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22693 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Part 620 

RIN 1205–AB63 

Federal-State Unemployment 

Compensation Program; Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012 Provision on Establishing 

Appropriate Occupations for Drug 

Testing of Unemployment 

Compensation Applicants 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) of the 

U.S. Department of Labor (Department) 

proposes to establish in regulation, for 

State Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

program purposes, occupations that 

regularly conduct drug testing. These 

regulations would implement the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 (the Act) 

amendments to the Social Security Act 

(SSA), permitting States to enact 

legislation that would allow State UI 

agencies to conduct drug testing on 

unemployment compensation (UC) 

applicants for whom suitable work (as 

defined under the State law) is only 

available in an occupation that regularly 

conducts drug testing (as determined 

under regulations issued by the 

Secretary of Labor (Secretary)). States 

may deny UC to an applicant who tests 

positive for drug use under these 

circumstances. The Secretary is required 

under the SSA to issue regulations 

determining those occupations that 

regularly conduct drug testing. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS