Friday, 

April 2, 2010 

Part III 

Department of 

Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Battery Chargers and 

External Power Supplies; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0019] 

RIN 1904–AC03 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Battery Chargers and 

External Power Supplies 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes major revisions 

to its test procedures for battery chargers 

and external power supplies. In 

particular, DOE proposes to insert a new 

active mode energy consumption test 

procedure for battery chargers, to assist 

in the development of energy 

conservation standards as directed by 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007. DOE also proposes to 

amend portions of its existing standby 

and off mode battery charger test 

procedure to shorten the measurement 

time. DOE is also considering amending 

its existing active mode single-voltage 

external power supply test procedure to 

permit testing of certain types of 

external power supplies that the 

existing test procedure may be unable to 

test. Additionally, DOE proposes to 

insert a new procedure to address 

multiple-voltage external power 

supplies, which are not covered under 

the current single-voltage external 

power supply test procedure. Finally, 

DOE is announcing a public meeting to 

receive comment on the issues 

presented in this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

in Washington, DC on Friday, May 7, 

2010, beginning at 9 a.m. DOE must 

receive requests to speak at the meeting 

before 4 p.m., Friday, April 23, 2010. 

DOE must receive a signed original and 

an electronic copy of statements to be 

given at the public meeting before 4 

p.m., Friday, April 30, 2010. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before or 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than June 16, 2010. See Section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NOPR for 

details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. To attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

participating in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures, requiring a 30-day advance 

notice. If a foreign national wishes to 

participate in the workshop, please 

inform DOE of this fact as soon as 

possible by contacting Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 so that the 

necessary procedures can be completed. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the Battery Charger Active 

Mode Test Procedure NOPR, and 

provide the docket number EERE–2009– 

BT–TP–0019 and/or Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) 1904–AC03. 

Comments may be submitted using any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 

BC&EPS_Test_Proc@ee.doe.gov. Include 

the docket number EERE–2009–BT–TP– 

0019 and/or RIN 1904–AC03 in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. Please submit one 

signed paper original. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V., ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 for 

additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. Please note: 

DOE’s Freedom of Information Reading 

Room no longer houses rulemaking 

materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–4549. E-mail: 

Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov. In the 

Office of General Counsel, contact Mr. 

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For additional information on how to 

submit or review public comments and 

on how to participate in the public 

meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

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) 586–2945. E-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Proposal 

A. Battery Charger Active Mode Test 

Procedure 

B. Review of Battery Charger and External 

Power Supply Standby Mode and Off 

Mode Test Procedures 

C. Review of Single-Voltage External Power 

Supply Test Procedure 

D. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply 

Test Procedure 

III. Discussion 

A. Effective Date for the Amended Test 

Procedures 

B. Battery Charger Active Mode Test 

Procedure 

1. Summary of the CEC Test Procedure 

2. Scope 

3. Definitions 

(a) Deletions of Existing Definitions 

(b) Revisions to Existing Definitions 

(c) Additions of New Definitions 

4. Test Apparatus and General Instructions 

(a) Confidence Intervals 

(b) Temperature 

(c) AC Input Voltage and Frequency 

(d) Charge Rate Selection 

(e) Battery Selection 

(f) Non-Battery Charging Functions 

(g) Determining the Charge Capacity of 

Batteries With No Rating 

5. Test Measurement 

(a) Removing Inactive Mode Energy 

Consumption Test Apparatus and 

Measurement 

(b) Charge Test Duration 

(c) Battery Conditioning 

(d) Battery Preparation 

(e) Reversed Testing Order 

(f) End of Discharge for Other Chemistries 

C. Review of Battery Charger and External 

Power Supply Standby and Off Mode 

Test Procedures 

D. Review of the Single-Voltage External 

Power Supply Test Procedure 

1. EPSs That Communicate With Their 

Loads 

2. EPSs With Output Current Limiting 

3. High-Power EPSs 

4. Active Power Definition 

E. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply 

Test Procedure 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16959 

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. 

2EISA 2007 defines a Class A EPS as an EPS that 

converts AC line voltage to only 1 lower AC or DC 

output, is intended to be used with an end-use 

product, is in a different enclosure from the enduse product, is wired to the end-use product, and 

has rated output power that is less than 250 watts. 

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

F. Test Procedure Amendments Not 

Proposed in this Notice 

1. Accelerating the Test Procedure 

Schedule 

2. Incorporating Usage Profiles 

3. Measuring Charger Output Energy 

4. Alternative Depth-of-Discharge 

Measurement 

IV. Regulatory Review 

A. Executive Order 12866 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999 

G. Executive Order 13132 

H. Executive Order 12988 

I. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2001 

J. Executive Order 13211 

K. Executive Order 12630 

L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To 

Speak 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

1. BC Active Mode 

2. Limiting the Scope of the Test Procedure 

3. BCs for Golf Carts and Other Consumer 

Motive Equipment 

4. Amendments to definitions 

5. Selecting the Charge Rate for Testing 

6. Selecting the Batteries for Testing 

7. Non-Battery Charging Functions 

8. Procedure for Determining the Charge 

Capacity of Batteries With No Rating 

9. Deletion of the Inactive Mode Energy 

Consumption Test Procedure 

10. Shortening the BC Charge and 

Maintenance Mode Test 

11. Reversing Testing Order 

12. End-of-Discharge Voltages for Novel 

Chemistries 

13. Standby Mode and Off Mode Duration 

14. Single-Voltage EPS Test Procedure 

Amendments To Accommodate EPSs 

that Communicate With Their Loads 

15. Further Single-Voltage EPS Test 

Procedure Amendments 

16. Loading Conditions for MultipleVoltage EPSs 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

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

seq.; EPCA or the Act) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part A of title 

III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) establishes the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles,’’ which covers consumer 

products and certain commercial 

products (all of which are referred to 

below as ‘‘covered products’’), including 

battery chargers (BCs) and external 

power supplies (EPSs). 

Under EPCA, the overall program 

consists essentially of the following 

parts: Testing, labeling, and Federal 

energy conservation standards. The 

testing requirements consist of 

procedures that manufacturers of 

covered products must use to certify to 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

that their products comply with EPCA 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their products. 

Also, these test procedures must be used 

whenever testing is required in an 

enforcement action to determine 

whether covered products comply with 

EPCA standards. 

Section 323 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

sets forth generally applicable criteria 

and procedures for DOE’s adoption and 

amendment of such test procedures. It 

states, for example, that test procedures 

for covered products should measure 

energy use, energy efficiency, or annual 

operating cost during a period that is 

representative of typical use. The test 

procedure should not be ‘‘unduly 

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

addition, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 

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

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

determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, it must 

publish proposed test procedures and 

offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments on 

them, with a comment period of not less 

than 75 days. Finally, in any rulemaking 

to amend a test procedure, DOE must 

determine ‘‘to what extent the proposed 

test procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency as determined under 

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

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

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

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

Relevant to today’s notice, section 135 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT), Public Law 109–58, amended 

sections 321 and 325 of EPCA by 

providing definitions for BCs and EPSs 

and directing the Secretary to 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, 71 FR 71340, on 

December 8, 2006 (EPACT 2005 En 

Masse final rule). In that notice, DOE 

codified the test procedure for BCs in 

appendix Y to subpart B of part 430 in 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) (‘‘Uniform Test 

Method for Measuring the Energy 

Consumption of Battery Chargers’’; 

hereafter referred to as ‘‘appendix Y’’) 

and the test procedure for EPSs in 

appendix Z to subpart B of 10 CFR part 

430 (‘‘Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

External Power Supplies’’; hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘appendix Z’’). 

On December 19, 2007, the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140, 

further amended sections 321, 323, and 

325 of EPCA, prompting DOE to propose 

and promulgate amendments to its test 

procedures for BCs and EPSs. 

Section 301 of EISA 2007 amended 

section 321 of EPCA by modifying 

definitions concerning EPSs. EPACT 

had amended EPCA to define 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 EPSs. 

EISA 2007 defined this subset as those 

EPSs that, in addition to meeting several 

other requirements common to all EPSs, 

are ‘‘able to convert 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.’’ 2 (42 U.S.C. 

6291(36)(C)(i)) 

Section 301 also amended EPCA to 

establish minimum standards for these 

products, which became effective on 

July 1, 2008 (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)), 

and directed DOE to publish a final rule 

by July 1, 2011, to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(3)(D)) Section 301 further 

directed DOE to issue a final rule that 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for BCs or determine that no 

‘‘standard is technically feasible or 

economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II)) 

In satisfaction of this requirement, 

DOE is bundling BCs and Class A EPSs 

together in a single rulemaking 

proceeding to consider appropriate 

energy conservation standards for these 

products. DOE published a notice of 

Public Meeting and Availability of 

Framework Document for Battery 

Chargers and External Power Supplies 

on June 4, 2009. 74 FR 26816. DOE then 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

3 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for 

Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies.’’ 

May 2009. Available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

bceps_frameworkdocument.pdf. 

held a public meeting to receive 

comment on the framework document 3

on July 16, 2009 (hereafter referred to as 

the framework document public 

meeting). During this public meeting, 

DOE also received comments on the BC 

active mode test procedure and other 

test procedure issues, some of which 

will be discussed in today’s notice. 

Under Section 302 of EISA, Congress 

instructed DOE to review its test 

procedures every seven (7) years. As 

needed, DOE must either amend the test 

procedure to (1) Improve its 

measurement representativeness or 

accuracy or (2) reduce its burden, or (3) 

determine that such amendments are 

unnecessary. DOE considers this 

rulemaking to constitute a 7-year review 

for both BC and EPS test procedures as 

required under EPCA, as modified by 

section 302 of EISA. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A)) Because DOE’s existing 

test procedures for BCs and EPSs were 

in place on December 19, 2007, when 

the 7-year test procedure review 

provisions of EPCA were enacted (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)), DOE would have 

to review these test procedures by 

December 2014. But because DOE is 

conducting this rulemaking, the 

Department has satisfied this review 

requirement in advance of this date. 

Section 309 of EISA further amended 

section 325(u)(1)(E) of EPCA, instructing 

DOE to issue no later than two years 

after EISA’s enactment a final rule ‘‘that 

determines whether energy conservation 

standards shall be issued for external 

power supplies or classes of external 

power supplies.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) However, as section 

301 of EISA simultaneously set 

standards for Class A external power 

supplies, DOE interprets sections 301 

and 309 jointly as a requirement to 

determine, no later than two years after 

EISA’s enactment, whether additional 

energy conservation standards shall be 

issued for EPSs that are outside the 

scope of the current Class A standards, 

e.g., multiple-voltage EPSs. 

Finally, section 310 of EISA 2007 

amended section 325 of EPCA to 

establish definitions for active mode, 

standby mode, and off mode. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(1)(A)) This section also 

directed DOE to amend its existing test 

procedures by December 31, 2008, to 

measure the energy consumed in 

standby mode and off mode for both 

BCs and EPSs. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(B)(i)) Further, it authorized 

DOE to amend, by rule, any of the 

definitions for active, standby, and off 

mode (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) The 

Department presented its then-proposed 

amendments during a public meeting on 

September 12, 2008 (hereafter referred 

to as the standby and off mode test 

procedure public meeting) and 

published them in the Test Procedures 

for Battery Chargers and External Power 

Supplies (Standby Mode and Off Mode) 

Final Rule on March 27, 2009. 74 FR 

13318. 

Today’s notice proposes (1) the 

adoption of new test procedures for the 

active mode of BCs and all modes of 

multiple-voltage EPSs and (2) the 

modification of existing parts of the BC 

and EPS test procedures (e.g., BC 

standby and off mode test duration). In 

doing so, it proposes to amend both 

appendices Y and Z in multiple places. 

Furthermore, although DOE proposes to 

retain the current language of certain 

sections of appendices Y and Z, in 

selecting proposed amendments for 

inclusion in today’s notice, DOE 

considered all aspects of the existing BC 

and EPS test procedures. Nonetheless, 

DOE seeks comment on the entirety of 

the BC and EPS test procedure to ensure 

that no additional amendments are 

needed at this time to further improve 

the procedures’ representativeness or 

reduce its burden. 

In the absence of comments on issues 

beyond those discussed in today’s 

notice, DOE expects to issue a final rule 

adopting these proposals in a timely 

manner. In this case, DOE would expect 

this rulemaking to satisfy the 7-year 

review requirement and would not 

expect any further review of the test 

procedures until 7 years after the 

effective date of the proposals in this 

notice—i.e., no sooner than 2017. 

To the extent that DOE receives 

comments on issues beyond those 

discussed in today’s notice, DOE may 

address these comments in a separate 

test procedure rulemaking, which 

would allow DOE to finalize today’s 

proposed BC active mode test procedure 

in time to support the corresponding 

standards rulemaking but allow 

sufficient time to take into consideration 

all comments from interested parties as 

required by the 7-year review provisions 

of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). 

II. Summary of the Proposal 

In this notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR), DOE proposes to: 

(1) Insert a new test procedure to 

measure the energy consumption of BCs 

in active mode to assist in the 

development of energy conservation 

standards; 

(2) Amend the BC test procedure to 

decrease the testing time of BCs in 

standby and off modes; 

(3) Potentially amend the singlevoltage EPSs test procedure to 

accommodate EPSs with Universal 

Serial Bus (USB) outputs and others that 

may not currently be tested in 

accordance with the test procedure; and 

(4) Insert a new test procedure for 

multiple-voltage EPSs, a type of nonClass A EPS that DOE will evaluate in 

the non-Class A determination analysis. 

Table 1 lists the sections of 10 CFR 

part 430 potentially affected by the 

amendments proposed in this NOPR. 

The left-hand column in the table cites 

the locations of the potentially affected 

CFR provisions, while the right-hand 

column lists the proposed changes. 

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

Existing section in 10 CFR Part 430 Summary of proposed modifications 

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

energy and water consumption.

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

mode. 

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

1. Scope ............................................................................................ • Limit scope to only include BCs intended for operation in the United 

States. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16961 

4The term ‘‘communicating’’ with a 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). While most EPSs provide 

power at a fixed output voltage regardless of what 

load is connected to their outputs, some EPSs will 

only provide power once they have 

‘‘communicated’’ with the load and identified it as 

the intended load. 

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

Existing section in 10 CFR Part 430 Summary of proposed modifications 

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

Æ Active power or real power (P). 

Æ Ambient temperature. 

Æ Apparent power (S). 

Æ Batch charger. 

Æ Battery rest period. 

Æ C-rate. 

Æ Crest factor. 

Æ Equalization. 

Æ Instructions or manufacturer’s instructions. 

Æ Measured charge capacity. 

Æ Power factor. 

Æ Rated battery voltage. 

Æ Rated charge capacity. 

Æ Rated energy capacity. 

Æ Total harmonic distortion (THD). 

Æ Unit under test (UUT). 

• Remove definitions for: 

Æ Accumulated nonactive energy. 

Æ Energy ratio or nonactive energy ratio. 

• Modify definitions for: 

Æ Active mode. 

Æ Multi-port charger. 

Æ Multi-voltage a la carte charger. 

Æ Standby mode. 

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

active mode. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Test Measurement ........................................................................ • Potentially modify 4(a) to accommodate EPSs that communicate with 

the load, perform current limiting, or have output power greater than 

250 watts. 

• Modify 4(b) to accommodate multiple-voltage EPSs. 

In developing today’s proposed test 

procedure amendments, DOE 

considered comments received from 

interested parties following the standby 

and off mode test procedure and 

framework document public meetings. 

Numerous comments dealt with testing 

new modes. In order to incorporate such 

changes, DOE reviewed the existing test 

procedures for BCs and EPSs, and found 

that, with some modifications, they 

could be used as a basis for updating 

DOE’s test procedures. This issue is 

discussed in greater detail later in this 

notice. 

DOE also examined whether the 

proposed amendments to its test 

procedures would significantly change 

the measured energy consumption or 

efficiency of the BC or EPS. This 

question is particularly important for 

Class A EPSs, which are subject to the 

EISA minimum efficiency standard that 

took effect on July 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(3)(A)) 

The amendments under consideration 

to the single-voltage EPS test procedure 

(used to test compliance with Class A 

EPS standards) would affect the 

measured efficiency of EPSs with USB 

output and others that communicate 

with their loads—the subset of Class A 

EPSs to which these amendments would 

apply.4 As described in section III.D., 

these amendments are presented in 

today’s notice because of DOE’s concern 

that the current single-voltage EPS test 

procedure may not measure the 

efficiency of these EPSs in a manner 

representative of their typical use, 

resulting in a lower measured efficiency 

than achievable under typical operating 

conditions. Because the single voltage 

test procedure amendments discussed 

in section III.D. would modify the test 

conditions to make them more 

representative of typical use, the 

measured efficiency of these EPSs 

would likely increase. Nonetheless, 

DOE does not expect any commensurate 

increase in the standards level for these 

EPSs. EPSs that communicate with their 

loads should be held to the same 

standard as the remainder of EPSs, 

which do not communicate with their 

loads, as long as they are measured in 

a representative fashion. 

The remaining amendments included 

in today’s notice, if adopted, would 

have the following impacts on measured 

energy consumption or efficiency: 

(1) The BC active mode test procedure 

amendment would change the measured 

energy consumption of BCs by 

eliminating the nonactive energy ratio 

metric and replacing it with a new 

metric that measures energy 

consumption in active mode; 

(2) The standby and off mode test 

procedure amendment would not 

change the measured energy 

consumption of BCs or EPSs; and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

5Ecos Consulting, Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI) Solutions, Southern California 

Edison (SCE). ‘‘Energy Efficiency Battery Charger 

System Test Procedure.’’ Version 2.2. November 12, 

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

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

19_BATTERY_CHARGER_SYS

TEM_TEST_PROCEDURE.PDF. 

6Some EPSs feature circuitry that allows them to 

communicate with their loads. This is used to tailor 

operation to the needs of the load as well as prevent 

use with incompatible loads. 

(3) The multiple-voltage EPS 

amendment would insert a new test 

procedure for these products, 

A. Battery Charger Active Mode Test 

Procedure 

The current DOE BC test procedure, 

first created by the EPACT 2005 En 

Masse final rule, 71 FR 71340, and 

amended by the standby and off mode 

final rule, 74 FR 13318, does not 

measure BC energy consumption in all 

modes. Instead, it excludes the energy 

consumed by the BC while charging a 

battery. The procedure measures energy 

consumption only in maintenance, 

standby (no battery), and off modes, 

when the battery has either been fully 

charged or removed from the BC. 

The BC active mode test procedure 

proposal in today’s notice, if adopted, 

would remove the inactive mode 

measurement (section 4(a) of appendix 

Y—which is a composite of different 

operational modes that would be 

measured separately under today’s 

proposal), add active mode 

measurement to section 4(b), amend the 

scope, definitions, and test apparatus 

and general instructions (sections 1, 2, 

and 3) in support of the new active 

mode test procedure, as well as 

rearrange and renumber the sections to 

ease referencing and use by testing 

technicians. The active mode 

amendment is based on the optional 

battery charger system test procedure 

adopted by the California Energy 

Commission (CEC),5 but has been 

modified to decrease testing burden 

(e.g., by considering a shorter test period 

and more efficient use of equipment) 

and increase clarity (e.g., by dividing 

complex procedures into discrete steps). 

These and other details of the proposal 

are discussed further in section III.B. 

B. Review of Battery Charger and 

External Power Supply Standby Mode 

and Off Mode Test Procedures 

DOE addressed the EPCA 

requirements to prescribe definitions 

and test procedures for measuring the 

energy consumption of EPSs and BCs in 

standby and off modes (42 U.S.C. 

6298(gg)(A) and (B)) in the Test 

Procedures for Battery Chargers and 

External Power Supplies (Standby Mode 

and Off Mode) Final Rule. 74 FR 13318. 

This final rule incorporated standby and 

off mode measurements as well as 

updated definitions into appendices Y 

and Z. 

In today’s notice, DOE proposes 

amending the BC test procedure to 

require the use of a 30-minute warm-up 

period followed by a 10-minute 

measurement period. Currently, the 

DOE test procedure requires a 1-hour 

measurement period. This amendment 

would harmonize DOE’s standby and off 

mode measurement for BCs with that 

contained in section IV of part 1 of the 

CEC BC test procedure. DOE anticipates 

that harmonizing its procedure with the 

CEC BC test procedure will produce a 

test procedure that decreases the testing 

burden on manufacturers while 

preserving testing accuracy. No changes 

are proposed to the standby and off 

mode test procedures for EPSs. Detailed 

discussion of the changes under 

consideration can be found in section 

III.C., below. 

C. Review of Single-Voltage External 

Power Supply Test Procedure 

DOE is also considering amending the 

test procedure for single-voltage EPSs to 

accommodate several classes of EPSs 

that cannot be tested in a representative 

or repeatable manner under the current 

test procedure. These EPSs include (1) 

Those that communicate with their 

loads through USB and other protocols,6

(2) limit their output current below the 

maximum listed on their nameplate, 

and (3) have output power in excess of 

250 watts. However, because these EPSs 

do not exist in significant numbers in 

the market, DOE has not been able to 

analyze them in depth and develop a 

general approach to testing them under 

the single-voltage EPS test procedure. 

Therefore, DOE will only be presenting 

the general outline of the test procedure 

changes under consideration, and will 

proceed in developing and 

promulgating a procedure covering 

these EPSs if it receives comments from 

interested parties verifying the 

approaches presented (e.g., custom test 

fixtures in the case of EPSs that 

communicate with their loads). The 

three types of EPSs that could be 

affected are briefly described below, 

while the test procedure changes under 

consideration can be found in section 

III.D. 

USB-Based EPSs 

USB EPSs typically power portable 

electronic products such as cellular 

telephones and portable media players 

that frequently receive power and data 

from a personal computer through its 

USB port. In contrast to most EPSs, 

which only provide one pair of output 

conductors (for power), the USB 

interface provides two pairs—for data 

and power, respectively. Although 

DOE’s current single-voltage EPS test 

procedure accommodates testing singlevoltage EPSs that have more than one 

pair of output conductors, it may not 

result in measurements representative of 

typical use if the other pairs of 

conductors are necessary for the 

specified operation of the EPS. 

EPSs That Communicate With Loads 

In addition to USB-based EPSs, other 

EPSs exist that also communicate with 

loads (e.g., notebook computers) using 

proprietary protocols. To address these 

designs, DOE is considering amending 

the single-voltage EPS test procedure to 

permit communication between the EPS 

and the load during testing. Any 

changes to the EPS test procedure to 

address this issue would affect only 

USB-compliant EPSs and other EPSs 

that cannot operate in a representative 

fashion without communication with 

the load. Additional details regarding 

this possible change are presented in 

section III.D.1., below. 

Output Current Limiting EPSs 

Similarly, DOE has encountered EPSs 

that may not be tested due to ‘‘output 

current limiting,’’ i.e., a mode of 

operation in which the EPS significantly 

lowers its output voltage once an 

internal limit on the output current has 

been exceeded. Although all EPSs limit 

their output current to provide 

additional safety during short-circuit 

conditions, some EPSs have been found 

to limit current to a value below the 

maximum specified on their nameplate. 

Because DOE’s single-voltage EPS test 

procedure does not provide for this 

possibility, DOE is considering adding 

language specifying the correct loading 

points in this case. The changes under 

consideration are detailed in section 

III.D.2. 

EPS with Nameplate Output Exceeding 

250 Watts 

Finally, the current DOE singlevoltage EPS test procedure may not 

sufficiently accommodate the testing of 

single-voltage EPSs with nameplate 

output power greater than 250 watts. In 

contrast to EPSs with output power less 

than 250 watts, high-power EPSs may 

have several maximum output currents, 

something the test procedure does not 

take into consideration. DOE is therefore 

considering clarifying the current 

regulatory language to account for this 

configuration. The changes under 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16963 

7 ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc and AcAc Power Supplies,’’ August 11, 2004, previously 

incorporated by reference into appendix Y. http:// 

www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/

prod_development/downloads/power_supplies/

EPSupplyEffic_TestMethod_0804.pdf. 

8 ‘‘Proposed Test Protocol for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power Supplies, 

Rev. 6.4.3,’’ October 26, 2009. http:// 

efficientpowersupplies.epri.com/pages/

Latest_Protocol/Generalized_Internal_Power_

Supply_Efficiency_Test_Protocol_R6.4.3.pdf. 

9The inactive mode energy consumption consists 

of the energy measured over 36 hours in 

maintenance mode, followed by 12 hours in 

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

abbreviating the measurement to 6 hours and 1 

hour, respectively. 

10Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ‘‘Test 

Methodology For Determining the Energy 

Performance of Battery Charging Systems.’’ 

December 2005. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/ 

partners/prod_development/downloads/ 

Battery_Chargers_Test_Method.pdf. 

11California Energy Commission (CEC), ‘‘2009 

Appliance Efficiency Regulations,’’ August 2009. 

12A notation in the form ‘‘Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 

at pp. 40–41’’ identifies an oral comment that DOE 

received during the July 16, 2009, framework 

document public meeting. This comment was 

recorded in the public meeting transcript in the 

docket of the BC and EPS energy conservation 

standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0005, RIN 1904–AB57), maintained in the 

Resource Room of the Building Technologies 

Program and available at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

bceps_standards_meeting_transcript.pdf. This 

particular notation refers to a comment (1) recorded 

in document number 14, which is the public 

meeting transcript filed in the docket, and (2) 

appearing on pages 40–41 of document number 14. 

13A notation in the form ‘‘PG&E et al., No. 20 at 

p. 7’’ identifies a written comment that DOE has 

received and included in the docket of the BC and 

EPS energy conservation standards rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005, RIN 1904– 

AB57). This comment was submitted by Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company, Southern California Edison 

Design & Engineering Services, Southern California 

Gas Company San Diego Gas and Electric Company, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, and 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

For referencing purposes, throughout this notice, 

comments submitted from these groups will be 

referred to as ‘‘PG&E et al.’’ This particular notation 

refers to (1) A comment submitted by Pacific Gas 

and Electric (PG&E) et al., (2) in document number 

20 in the docket, and (3) appearing on page 7 of 

document number 20. 

14This comment was submitted by California 

Energy Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company, Southern California Edison Design & 

Engineering Services, Southern California Gas 

Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer 

Federation of America, National Consumer Law 

Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, Midwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northwest Power and 

Continued 

consideration are detailed in section 

III.D.3. 

D. Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply Test Procedure 

Section 309 of EISA amended section 

325 of EPCA by directing DOE to 

conduct a determination analysis for 

EPSs such as those EPSs equipped with 

multiple simultaneous output voltages. 

DOE is not aware of any existing test 

procedure developed specifically to 

measure the efficiency or energy 

consumption of multiple-voltage EPSs. 

To develop such a procedure, DOE 

reviewed related test procedures 

currently in use and proposed a test 

procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs 

based on the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) single-voltage EPS 7 and 

internal power supply (IPS) 8 test 

procedures. 73 FR 48054. In today’s 

notice, DOE is proposing a test 

procedure generally consistent with its 

August 2008 proposal, but with some 

changes to accommodate the concerns 

of interested parties. 

Incorporating this amendment into 

the EPS test procedure would enable 

DOE to evaluate power consumption for 

multiple-voltage EPSs in all modes of 

operation: active, standby (i.e., no-load), 

and off. A detailed discussion of DOE’s 

proposed test procedure for multiplevoltage EPSs can be found in section 

III.E., below. 

III. Discussion 

A. Effective Date for the Amended Test 

Procedures 

If adopted, the amendments proposed 

today would become effective 30 days 

after the publication of the final rule. As 

of this effective date, manufacturers 

(and DOE) would be required to use the 

amended appendices when testing to 

determine if BCs and EPSs comply with 

energy conservation standards. In 

addition, any representations made 

regarding energy use or the cost of 

energy use for such products 

manufactured on or after the effective 

date would have to be based on the 

amended test procedures in appendices 

Y and Z. 

However, absent new standards, only 

the amendments to the single-voltage 

EPS test procedure would be binding 

after the effective date, since DOE does 

not yet have standards for non-Class A 

EPSs or BCs. DOE has initiated work on 

standards for non-Class A EPSs and 

BCs, with a framework document 

published on June 4, 2009. The 

amendments to the BC and non-Class A 

test procedures would become binding 

following publication of a final rule that 

establishes these standards. 

B. Battery Charger Active Mode Test 

Procedure 

The BC test procedure was inserted 

into appendix Y by the EPACT 2005 En 

Masse final rule, 71 FR 71368, and 

amended by the standby and off mode 

final rule 74 FR 13334. It is composed 

of four parts: (1) Scope, (2) definitions, 

(3) test apparatus and general 

instructions, and (4) test measurement. 

The test measurement section is further 

subdivided into: 

(a) Inactive mode energy consumption 

measurement,9 which incorporates by 

reference section 5 of the EPA ENERGY 

STAR BC test procedure 10; 

(b) Active mode energy consumption 

measurement, which is currently 

reserved; 

(c) Standby mode energy 

consumption measurement; and 

(d) Off mode energy consumption 

measurement. 

During the standby and off mode test 

procedure rulemaking, numerous 

interested parties commented that the 

current DOE test procedure is 

insufficient as a basis for the 

development of energy conservation 

standards, as it does not measure energy 

consumption during active (charge) 

mode. Many of these interested parties 

also recommended that DOE adopt the 

optional BC test procedure then under 

consideration in draft form at the CEC. 

As mentioned in the standby and off 

mode test procedure final rule, DOE was 

unable to act on these comments, as it 

had not proposed any active mode 

changes in the standby and off mode 

test procedure NOPR, 73 FR 48054 

(August 15, 2008). 74 FR 13322. 

On December 3, 2008, CEC adopted 

version 2.2 of the test procedure 

developed by Ecos, EPRI Solutions, and 

SCE, as an optional test procedure for 

the measurement of BC energy 

consumption in charging (active), 

maintenance, no-battery (standby), and 

off modes. The test procedure was 

incorporated by reference into section 

1604(w) of title 20 of the California 

Code of Regulations,11 alongside the 

DOE test procedure from appendix Y. 

In its framework document, DOE 

mentioned its desire to amend the BC 

test procedure in appendix Y to measure 

energy consumption in each of the 

modes of operation of a BC (including 

active mode). During and after the 

framework document public meeting, 

interested parties expressed their 

general desire for DOE to adopt the CEC 

test procedure as the Federal test 

procedure for measuring the active 

mode energy consumption of BCs. In 

particular, Pacific Gas and Electric 

(PG&E), CEC, and Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project (ASAP) commented 

that DOE should expedite the 

rulemaking for an active mode test 

procedure, harmonizing with the CEC 

BC test procedure. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 

at pp. 40–41,12 PG&E et al., No. 20 at p. 

7,13 CEC et al., No. 19 at p. 1 14). The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Conservation Council, Southeast Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, and Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. 

For referencing purposes, throughout this notice, 

comments submitted from these groups will be 

referred to as ‘‘CEC et al.’’ 

15Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 

C381.2–08. ‘‘Test Method for Determining the 

Energy Efficiency of Battery-Charging Systems.’’ 

November 2008. 

16EPA ENERGY STAR. ‘‘Qualified Product (QP) 

List for ENERGY STAR Qualified Battery Charging 

Systems .’’ October 1, 2009. Available at: http:// 

www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod_lists/ 

BCS_prod_list.pdf. 

17The above discussion applies to part 1 of the 

CEC test procedure; in addition, the test procedure 

also includes a part 2, which applies to larger 

(greater than 2000 watt output) BCs intended for 

transport and industrial applications. 

18Part 2 of the CEC test procedure also applies 

to BCs for golf carts and other motive equipment 

that DOE considers to be consumer products. This 

issue is discussed further in section III.B.2. 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) similarly 

requested that DOE harmonize its test 

procedure for battery chargers with 

other jurisdictions, but consider changes 

in methodology where appropriate. 

(AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2) 

DOE researched existing worldwide 

test procedures for measuring BC energy 

consumption in active mode and found 

that there are currently three test 

procedures for measuring the energy 

consumption of consumer battery 

chargers: (1) The EPA ENERGY STAR 

BC test procedure, (2) the Canadian 

Standards Association (CSA) C381.2 test 

procedure,15 and (3) the CEC test 

procedure.5 No energy efficiency 

standards-setting or promoting 

organizations in Europe, Australia, or 

China have developed or adopted 

additional BC test procedures. 

The EPA ENERGY STAR test 

procedure was adopted by ENERGY 

STAR in 2005 and has remained 

unchanged since then. This is the same 

test procedure incorporated by reference 

by DOE into sections 3 and 4(a) of 

appendix Y by the EPACT 2005 En 

Masse final rule, 71 FR 71340. Although 

it has been used to test numerous BCs 

(over 135 BCs qualified for the ENERGY 

STAR mark following testing in 

accordance with the test procedure),16

this test procedure does not measure 

energy consumption of these products 

in active mode. 

Similarly, the CSA 381.2 test 

procedure, adopted in 2008, does not 

measure BC active mode consumption. 

Instead, the procedure relies on the 

same inactive mode energy 

consumption measurement as the EPA 

ENERGY STAR BC test procedure and 

the current DOE test procedure. 

The CEC test procedure, in contrast, 

includes active mode energy 

consumption through its 24-hour active 

and maintenance mode test. This test 

procedure was developed over six years 

through a collaborative process between 

energy efficiency advocates and 

industry experts, including multiple 

meetings and revisions (PG&E, No. 13 at 

p. 2). The result, according to PG&E, has 

been a test procedure that applies to the 

full spectrum of consumer battery 

chargers, regardless of input voltage (AC 

or DC), battery chemistry, and battery 

type (detachable or integral). PG&E 

provided test results from the 

application of the test procedure to over 

142 consumer BCs (PG&E, No. 13 at p. 

6).17

DOE has conducted further tests using 

this procedure and considers its 

measurement metrics, accuracy, and 

variability to be appropriate for the 

product being tested. Consequently, 

DOE is proposing to adopt part 1 of the 

CEC test procedure (for consumer 

products with input power under 2 

kilowatts) to measure (1) BC energy 

consumption in active and maintenance 

modes and (2) the amount of energy 

recovered from the battery during 

discharge. DOE would, however, make 

several modifications to constrain its 

application to BCs sold in the United 

States, improve its clarity, and decrease 

its testing burden. DOE expects the 

resulting test procedure, explained in 

detail below, to produce equivalent 

results as the test procedure adopted by 

the CEC, while reducing the required 

technician and equipment time to 

perform the tests. 

Finally, although part 1 of the CEC 

test procedure also contains instructions 

for measuring energy consumption in 

standby and off modes, DOE previously 

adopted standby and off mode test 

procedures in its March 2009 final rule. 

74 FR 13334. Today’s proposal retains 

these test procedures, which would be 

incorporated into sections 4(c) and 4(d) 

of appendix Y, and be modified as 

described in section III.B, in lieu of 

adopting their equivalents from the CEC 

test procedure (part 1, section IV). A 

summary of the CEC test procedure 

follows, along with specific 

modifications that DOE would make 

prior to incorporation in appendix Y. As 

with all other sections in this proposal, 

DOE seeks comment regarding all 

aspects of its proposed approach. 

1. Summary of the CEC Test Procedure 

The lengthy stakeholder consultation 

process conducted by the CEC led to the 

development of a test procedure for 

measuring the energy consumption of 

both consumer (part 1) and industrial 

(part 2) chargers.18 Both parts of the test 

procedure measure the input energy to 

the battery charger when recharging a 

battery that had previously been 

conditioned (if necessary) and 

discharged to a specified depth. (Part 2 

also requires measurement of the 

charger output energy.) Both parts of the 

test procedure then require 

measurement of the energy recoverable 

from the battery during discharge. 

Finally, the test procedure requires 

measurement of the charger input power 

with (1) The battery fully charged and 

connected to the charger (maintenance 

mode), (2) the battery removed from the 

charger (standby mode), and (3) the 

battery removed from the charger and 

the charger turned off, if a manual onoff switch is present (off mode). The 

number of tests, their duration, and 

other specifics vary between the two 

parts and also from charger to charger, 

depending on its capabilities. 

The test procedure provides a set of 

definitions needed to test a wide variety 

of BCs. While some of these definitions 

are necessary for testing the larger 

industrial chargers, others are used in 

both parts of the test procedure and 

provide additional specificity beyond 

the definitions currently incorporated in 

section 2 of appendix Y. 

Part 1 of the test procedure continues 

with specification of the test conditions 

in section I. Like the test conditions 

section of the EPA BC test procedure 

(which is incorporated into section 3 of 

appendix Y), this section of the CEC test 

procedure sets a variety of requirements, 

including limits on the input voltage to 

the charger, the speed and temperature 

of the air surrounding the unit under 

test (UUT), and measurement precision 

and accuracy. The AC input voltage 

waveform characteristics and ambient 

airspeed and temperature requirements 

of the CEC test procedure are equivalent 

to those of the EPA test procedure. The 

remaining requirements are stricter, 

however, specifying tighter limits on 

some parameters (e.g., measurement 

resolution, etc.) and limits on additional 

parameters that may affect measurement 

results (e.g., uncertainty, materials on 

which the BC may rest, characteristic of 

input voltage waveform for DC chargers, 

etc.). These tighter specifications on 

testing conditions should result in a 

more repeatable test procedure. 

Following the test condition section, 

the CEC test procedure proceeds to 

specify the selection and setup of the 

battery and charger in section II. The age 

of the UUT is specified, as in the EPA 

test procedure. However, the CEC test 

procedure also specifies the mode of 

operation of the BC for chargers with 

several charge modes and/or additional 

functionality. Finally, the CEC test 

procedure specifies which batteries 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16965 

19 ‘‘The term ‘battery charger’ means a device that 

charges batteries for consumer products, including 

battery chargers embedded in other consumer 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) 

20AC line voltage in the U.S. is nominally 120 

volts at 60 hertz. However, several international test 

procedures specify testing at 115 volts, as that test 

condition will also be applicable to devices used in 

several South and Central American countries, 

where the AC line voltage is nominally 110 volts 

at 60 hertz. 

21 ITI submitted comments on behalf of one of its 

member companies, who wishes to remain 

anonymous. The comments submitted do not reflect 

the opinion of ITI. 

should be used for the test, how to 

access their terminals, and how to 

estimate the energy capacity (used later 

in the test procedure to calculate the 

discharge rate) of the battery in case the 

battery is not labeled. The battery 

selection procedure is particularly 

helpful when testing BCs not packaged 

with batteries. Again, these additional 

specifications allow the test procedure 

to return repeatable results when testing 

a wider variety of BCs beyond those 

included in the EPA ENERGY STAR 

program. 

Once the BC has been set to the 

correct mode or modes and the test 

battery or batteries have been identified, 

the measurements can begin. The 

measurement instructions are contained 

in section III of part 1, and specify how 

to condition, prepare, rest, charge, and 

discharge the battery, as well as which 

quantities to measure during each of 

these steps. Section III.A requires the 

tester to condition nickel-based batteries 

that have not been previously tested by 

charging them three times and 

discharging twice. This step is necessary 

because nickel-based batteries must be 

cycled several times before their 

capacity stabilizes and the test results 

become representative of typical use. 

The next step, preparation, consists of a 

controlled discharge to the end-ofdischarge voltage. This step ensures that 

the battery has been fully discharged 

and that the energy consumed by the 

charger as it takes the battery from a 

fully discharged to a fully charged state 

can be compared to the energy 

recovered from the battery. Finally, the 

battery is rested, allowing it to return to 

the ambient temperature. Since many 

battery parameters depend on 

temperature, this step further improves 

the repeatability of the test procedure. 

All three of these initial steps are 

required for ensuring the repeatability of 

the test procedure, and are incorporated 

into today’s proposal, with the minor 

modifications presented in sections 

III.B.5.(c) and III.B.5.(d) of this notice. 

Section III of part 1 of the CEC test 

procedure requires measuring the 

energy consumed by the charger (as an 

integral of input power samples) when 

recharging the fully discharged and 

rested battery, but with any special 

charging functions (e.g., equalization) 

turned off. This requirement is a 

significant departure from the EPA test 

procedure because the EPA procedure 

does not record the energy consumed 

during charging. The CEC test procedure 

also requires testers to record further 

parameters such as temperature, power 

factor, and current crest factor. 

The CEC test procedure also specifies 

that the test must run for 24 hours or 

longer, as required by the manufacturer 

or as determined by the tester through 

observation of the charger (see section 

II.E of the part 1). Although BCs work 

at different rates, the CEC test procedure 

subjects them all to a full 24-hour 

charge and maintenance test. This is 

done to (1) obtain a uniform metric for 

comparisons and (2) increase the 

likelihood that the input power to the 

charger measured at the end of the 24- 

hour period is representative of the 

maintenance-mode power usage that a 

user will encounter when he or she 

leaves a battery connected to the charger 

for an extended period of time, which 

is the case for BCs used in handheld 

vacuum cleaners and cordless 

telephones, among others. While DOE 

believes these procedural requirements 

have merit, DOE seeks comment from 

interested parties on whether it is 

possible to shorten the measurement 

period that the CEC procedure currently 

requires while preserving the accuracy 

and completeness of that procedure’s 

measurements. This method is 

described further in section III.B.5.(b) of 

this notice. 

Finally, section IV of part 1 of the CEC 

test procedure describes the no-battery 

(standby) and off mode tests, while 

section V specifies the reporting 

requirements. Because DOE has already 

adopted standby and off mode test 

procedures for battery chargers, and 

because it specifies reporting 

requirements separately in section 

430.22, it is not proposing today to 

incorporate these sections of the CEC 

test procedure into appendix Y. 

Part 2 of the CEC test procedure 

follows a similar structure to part 1, but 

adds requirements to measure the 

output of the charger, test the charger 

with the battery at three different 

depths-of-discharge, and ensure chargertest battery compatibility, among others. 

These requirements may be needed to 

fully characterize the energy 

consumption of large lead-acid BCs for 

industrial applications; however, 

because DOE’s current scope covers 

chargers for consumer products, DOE 

focused primarily on part 1, though the 

differences between the two parts are 

discussed in further detail in III.B.2. of 

this notice. 

As the above summary shows, the 

CEC test procedure is a complete and 

detailed energy efficiency test procedure 

that can serve as a basis for a DOE test 

procedure. The steps outlined above 

contribute to the accurate measurement 

of the energy efficiency of battery 

chargers and have been incorporated 

into today’s proposal, except where a 

less burdensome or more accurate 

alternative exists. These departures are 

presented in more detail in the 

subsequent sections. 

2. Scope 

The scope of the current DOE test 

procedure encompasses all BCs,19

regardless of input voltage. However, 

following the framework document 

public meeting, a member company of 

the Information Technology Industry 

(ITI) Council submitted a comment 

requesting that DOE limit testing to U.S. 

line-voltage AC input (115 volts at 60 

hertz).20 (ITI member,21 No. 17 at p. 1) 

Limiting the scope of the test 

procedure to encompass BCs with DC or 

U.S. line-voltage AC input would ensure 

that all consumer battery chargers 

intended for use in the U.S. will be 

covered, while preventing unnecessary 

testing of industrial BCs or consumer 

BCs intended for use outside of the U.S. 

Such a modification to the scope would 

also be consistent with DOE’s treatment 

of EPSs, which are not only defined as 

a circuit ‘‘used to convert household 

[line-voltage AC] electric current’’ in the 

statute (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)), but are also 

tested at 115 volts at 60 hertz, as 

specified in section 3 of appendix Z part 

430 of title 10 of the CFR. 

This limitation on input voltage 

would differentiate the proposed scope 

from that in the CEC BC test procedure. 

The proposed scope further differs from 

the CEC BC test procedure by including 

only BCs for consumer products. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(32)) The CEC BC test 

procedure, on the other hand, covers not 

only BCs for consumer products, but 

also BCs for commercial and industrial 

applications such as forklifts and 

emergency egress lighting. 

Even though the CEC test procedure 

covers BCs for applications from all 

market segments, it is divided by input 

and output parameters and intended 

application, among other criteria. For 

example, part 1 of the CEC BC test 

procedure applies to consumer chargers 

with input power under 2 kilowatts, 

while part 2 applies primarily to larger 

industrial chargers and chargers for golf 

carts and other consumer motive 

equipment. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16966 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Chargers for golf carts and other 

motive equipment were covered by part 

2 of the CEC test procedure due to their 

similarity to large industrial BCs—both 

typically charge flooded lead-acid 

batteries. Part 2 addresses the particular 

concerns of testing these flooded leadacid systems, such as different charger 

and battery manufacturers, high charger 

efficiency (necessary due to high output 

power), and an unsealed battery 

construction permitting measurements 

of the temperature and specific gravity 

of the acid electrolyte to determine 

battery state. 

While these test procedure provisions 

may be necessary to accurately measure 

the energy efficiency of large industrial 

BCs, chargers for golf carts and other 

types of consumer motive equipment 

(collectively, consumer motive 

equipment) fall at the low-power end of 

the lead-acid BC range, where the need 

for a specialized test procedure is not as 

clear. For example, high-power 

industrial chargers are already highly 

efficient, so part 2 requires a series of 

tests under various conditions to detect 

any differences in energy consumption. 

On the other hand, there is sufficient 

efficiency variation in the consumer 

motive equipment BC market such that 

a less burdensome test procedure will 

suffice for energy consumption 

measurements. To accommodate 

consumer motive equipment within the 

BC test procedure, DOE has two options: 

(1) Include BCs for consumer motive 

equipment batteries with those for all 

other consumer products, in a single test 

procedure based on part 1 of the CEC BC 

test procedure; or 

(2) Include BCs for consumer motive 

equipment in one test procedure based 

on part 2 of the CEC BC test procedure, 

while including BCs for all other 

consumer products in a second test 

procedure based on part 1 of the CEC BC 

test procedure. 

Approach 2, above, would result in an 

additional DOE test procedure based on 

part 2 of the CEC test procedure. 

However, because DOE’s scope does not 

extend to large industrial chargers, this 

additional test procedure would only 

cover chargers for golf carts and other 

consumer motive equipment. Under this 

approach, separate test setup and 

measurement requirements would need 

to be established to test a class of 

products with few models and limited 

shipments. 

However, a previous draft of the CEC 

test procedure included consumer 

motive equipment together with smaller 

consumer BCs, simplifying the testing 

requirements. Although the testing 

requirements for consumer motive 

equipment and the remaining consumer 

BCs were later separated into the two 

parts of the test procedure, an integrated 

test procedure remains valid for testing 

the efficiency of both classes of BCs. 

Therefore, rather than proposing a 

separate procedure that would cover 

only a single class of BCs (consumer 

motive equipment), DOE proposes to 

follow approach 1 above and include 

consumer motive equipment chargers 

under a general test procedure for all 

consumer products. The particulars of 

this proposed test procedure are 

discussed at length in the remainder of 

this section. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

proposes to amend section 1 of 

appendix Y to read as set out in the 

regulatory text of this NOPR. 

Nonetheless, DOE is also considering 

approach 2—adopting an additional test 

procedure for consumer motive 

equipment chargers based on part 2 of 

the CEC test procedure—given sufficient 

comment and supporting data from 

interested parties. DOE invites 

interested parties to comment on both 

approaches. In particular, DOE seeks 

comment on the applicability of part 1 

of the CEC test procedure, and today’s 

proposed test procedure, to BCs for golf 

carts and other consumer motive 

equipment and the testing burden of 

part 2 of the CEC test procedure 

compared to part 1 of the CEC test 

procedure and today’s proposed test 

procedure. DOE also seeks comment 

generally on the completeness of the 

battery chemistries included in its 

proposal. 

3. Definitions 

DOE is proposing to incorporate 

elements of the CEC test procedure into 

the current version of appendix Y. For 

example, some of the CEC definitions 

differed slightly from those in section 2 

of appendix Y, while other terms used 

in the CEC test procedure were 

undefined in appendix Y. Because of 

these discrepancies, DOE is proposing 

to amend section 2 of appendix Y 

(definitions) by amending, deleting, and 

incorporating new definitions to prevent 

potential confusion with respect to 

today’s proposal. Finally, DOE is 

proposing to remove definitions used 

only in section 4(a) of appendix Y 

(inactive mode energy consumption 

measurement), which DOE also 

proposes to remove (see section III.B.5. 

(a) of this notice). 

The specific changes proposed in 

today’s notice consist of a series of 

deletions, amendments and additions. 

First, DOE proposes to remove the 

definitions of ‘‘accumulated nonactive 

energy’’ and ‘‘energy ratio or nonactive 

energy ratio.’’ Second, DOE proposes to 

modify the definitions of ‘‘active mode,’’ 

‘‘multi-port charger,’’ ‘‘multi-voltage a la 

carte charger,’’ and ‘‘standby mode.’’ 

Finally, DOE proposes to add 

definitions for ‘‘active power or real 

power (P),’’ ‘‘ambient temperature,’’ 

‘‘apparent power (S),’’ ‘‘batch charger,’’ 

‘‘battery rest period,’’ ‘‘rated energy 

capacity,’’ ‘‘C-rate,’’ ‘‘crest factor,’’ 

‘‘equalization,’’ ‘‘instructions or 

manufacturer’s instructions,’’ ‘‘measured 

charge capacity’’ ‘‘power factor,’’ ‘‘rated 

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

‘‘total harmonic distortion (THD),’’ and 

‘‘unit under test (UUT).’’ By amending, 

deleting, and incorporating new 

definitions, DOE aims to improve the 

clarity and utility of its test procedure 

for BCs. 

(a) Deletions of Existing Definitions 

DOE is proposing to delete the 

definitions of ‘‘accumulated nonactive 

energy’’ and ‘‘energy ratio or nonactive 

energy ratio.’’ These definitions are no 

longer useful since they relate only to 

the inactive energy consumption 

measurement (section 4(b)), which DOE 

is proposing to remove from appendix Y 

in today’s notice. 

(b) Revisions to Existing Definitions 

DOE is proposing to update some of 

the definitions codified in appendix Y 

by the EPACT 2005 En Masse final rule, 

71 FR 71368, to avoid confusion in their 

application to the proposed BC active 

mode test procedure. Specifically, DOE 

proposes to modify the definition of 

‘‘active mode’’ by adding the alternative 

term ‘‘charge mode’’ to the definition. As 

these two terms are often used 

interchangeably, DOE believes that this 

change will reduce the confusion 

between the two terms. 

Also, DOE proposes to modify the 

definition of ‘‘multi-port charger’’ and 

‘‘multi-voltage a la carte charger.’’ The 

definitions of ‘‘multi-port charger’’ and 

‘‘multi-voltage a la carte charger’’ 

included in appendix Y did not 

previously specify that they 

encompassed a batch charger (see 

section III.B.3. (c)). As both the 

proposed BC active mode test procedure 

and the CEC test procedure upon which 

it is based rely on the characteristics of 

the charger when specifying the 

batteries to be used for the test, DOE is 

proposing to replace the current 

definitions in appendix Y with those in 

the CEC test procedure to ensure that 

battery selection for these types of BCs 

will be performed in the same manner. 

Finally, DOE proposes to modify the 

definition of BC ‘‘standby mode,’’ which 

is synonymous with ‘‘no-battery mode.’’ 

These two terms are already included in 

the definition; however, DOE proposes 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16967 

22The efficiency of BCs is dependent on 

temperature. Therefore, the test procedure specifies 

the ambient temperature to ensure consistent 

results between tests. 

to remove the parenthetical and simply 

present both terms for consistency with 

its other definitions. DOE is proposing 

to redefine this term in section 2.24 of 

appendix Y, as set out in the regulatory 

text of this NOPR. 

(c) Additions of New Definitions 

Although the EPACT 2005 En Masse 

final rule inserted numerous definitions 

into appendix Y, 71 FR 71368, the 

expansion of the BC test procedure to 

include active mode requires DOE to 

propose additional definitions in 

today’s notice. These proposed 

definitions (as well as the proposed 

procedure) are based on those used by 

the CEC and help clarify the proposed 

active mode test procedure. 

Nonetheless, these definitions have 

broader applicability, as they are based 

in large part on established international 

standards (e.g., International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

standard 62301, Household Electrical 

Appliances—Measurement of Standby 

Power, or Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers standard 1515– 

2000, Recommended Practice for 

Electronic Power Subsystems: Parameter 

Definitions, Test Conditions, and Test 

Methods). Furthermore, some of these 

definitions had previously been 

incorporated into the DOE EPS test 

procedure in appendix Z. 74 FR 13335. 

By adopting the following definitions, 

DOE hopes to avoid confusion or 

inconsistency in the application of its 

proposed test procedure. Accordingly, 

DOE is proposing to incorporate 

definitions that are consistent with the 

CEC test procedure for the following 

terms in section 2 of appendix Y: ‘‘batch 

charger,’’ ‘‘battery rest period,’’ 

‘‘equalization,’’ ‘‘power factor,’’ ‘‘rated 

energy capacity,’’ and ‘‘rated battery 

voltage.’’ The Department is also 

proposing new definitions for ‘‘active 

power or real power (P),’’ ‘‘ambient 

temperature,’’ ‘‘apparent power (S),’’ ‘‘Crate,’’ ‘‘crest factor,’’ ‘‘instructions or 

manufacturer’s instructions,’’ ‘‘measured 

charge capacity,’’ ‘‘rated charge 

capacity,’’ ‘‘total harmonic distortion 

(THD),’’ and ‘‘unit under test (UUT).’’ 

The proposed definitions are detailed 

below. 

DOE is proposing to define ‘‘active 

power or real power (P)’’ using the 

definition found in IEEE standard 1515– 

2000, rather than the definition in the 

CEC test procedure. The CEC test 

procedure defines active power as the 

average of instantaneous power taken 

over one or more periods of time. In 

contrast, IEEE Standard 1515–2000 

defines active power as the integral over 

one period of the product of the voltage 

and current waveforms divided by the 

period. DOE believes that the approach 

of IEEE Standard 1515–2000 is 

preferable because it is clearer and, as 

the industry standard, more widely 

accepted. Accordingly, DOE is 

proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.2, as set out in the 

regulatory text of this NOPR. 

DOE proposes to include a definition 

for ‘‘ambient temperature’’ in its test 

procedure based on the CEC definition 

except for the addition of the word 

‘‘immediately.’’ The primary reason for 

this change is to make the proposed 

DOE definition in appendix Y 

consistent with appendix Z and IEEE 

standard 1515–2000. Furthermore, the 

inclusion of the word ‘‘immediately’’ 

limits the definition to only the volume 

of air within close proximity to the unit 

under test. It is the temperature of this 

particular volume of air, and not of that 

elsewhere in the test room—that could 

potentially impact the test results.22

DOE is proposing to define this term as 

set out in the regulatory text of this 

NOPR. 

DOE notes that although it is not 

proposing to set a specified distance 

within which this temperature measure 

must be taken (e.g., 5 feet from the unit 

under test in all directions), it is 

considering the inclusion of such a 

requirement in order to minimize the 

risks of potential gaming during 

compliance certification testing. 

Comments from the public on this 

particular issue are also sought. 

To achieve consistency with the 

proposed definition of active mode, 

DOE proposes to include a definition for 

‘‘apparent power (S)’’ in its test 

procedure that would incorporate 

language from the CEC test procedure 

(which is the same as that in appendix 

Z and IEEE standard 1515–2000), with 

the sole exception of specifying that the 

measurement be expressed in voltamperes. This change achieves 

consistency with the active mode 

because that definition also specifies the 

units of measurement. Apparent power 

is used in the power factor definition 

and is included for consistency with the 

CEC test procedure, which includes a 

similar definition. DOE is proposing to 

define this term in appendix Y, section 

2.4 as set out in the regulatory text of 

this NOPR. 

DOE is also proposing a definition of 

‘‘batch charger’’ based on the CEC 

definition. DOE believes that the CEC 

definition for ‘‘batch charger’’ is clear 

and concise, and is proposing that the 

definition be adopted verbatim. DOE is 

proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.5 as set out in the 

regulatory text of this NOPR. 

DOE is proposing to include a 

definition for ‘‘battery rest period’’ in the 

test procedure, adopted verbatim from 

the CEC test procedure. ‘‘Battery rest 

period’’ is the period between preparing 

the battery and the battery discharge 

test, as well as the period between the 

battery discharge test and the charge 

and maintenance mode test. DOE is 

proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.9 as set out in the 

regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed ‘‘C-rate’’ definition is 

based on the CEC test procedure, but 

has been modified to remove the 

example C-rate calculation, retaining 

only the definition. C-rate is used in the 

test procedure to describe the rate of 

charge and discharge during testing. 

DOE is proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.10 as set out in 

the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed definition for ‘‘crest 

factor’’ is based on the definition in the 

CEC test procedure. Crest factor, which 

refers to the ratio of the peak 

instantaneous value of a quantity to its 

root-mean-square (RMS) value, is 

recorded when performing the charge 

mode and battery maintenance mode 

test. IEEE standard 1515–2000 and IEC 

standard 62301 both define this term in 

a manner similar to CEC. DOE is 

proposing to adopt the definition from 

the two industry standards, as that 

version is more concise. DOE is 

proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.12 as set out in 

the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed definition for 

‘‘equalization’’ has been taken verbatim 

from the CEC test procedure. The 

equalization charge is not tested under 

the proposed test procedure, since it is 

considered one of the ‘‘special charge 

cycles that are recommended only for 

occasional use to preserve battery 

health.’’ DOE is proposing to define this 

term in appendix Y, section 2.13 as set 

out in the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed definition for 

‘‘instructions or manufacturer’s 

instructions’’ is based on the 

‘‘instructions’’ definition from the CEC 

test procedure, which states that 

‘‘ ‘instructions’ includes any information 

on the packaging or on the product itself 

* * * ‘Instructions’ also includes any 

service manuals or data sheets that the 

manufacturer offers for sale to 

independent service technicians, 

whether printed or in electronic form.’’ 

DOE is proposing to expand the scope 

of this definition by also including 

information about the product that is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16968 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

23Any periodic signal can be decomposed into a 

sum of sine waves at integer multiples of its 

fundamental frequency (the inverse of the period of 

repetition). The signal can be represented by a sine 

wave at the same frequency as the original, plus a 

second sine wave at twice the frequency, plus a 

third sine wave at three times the frequency, and 

so on. These sine waves are known as ‘‘harmonics.’’ 

Although the number of harmonics are infinite in 

number, their amplitude tends to decrease 

precipitously with each subsequent harmonic, such 

that it is reasonable to stop the measurement at a 

particular harmonic, and the 13th has been found 

to be sufficient in practice. 

24BC efficiency test data submitted by Pacific Gas 

and Electric (collected by its technical consultant 

Ecos) are available on DOE’s website. Please see: 

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

appliance_standards/residential/ 

battery_external_std_2008.html. 

available on the manufacturer’s website. 

These instructions, which only include 

those materials available at the time of 

the test, must be followed when setting 

up the battery charging system, except 

when in conflict with the requirements 

of this test procedure. DOE is proposing 

this change in the definition because the 

test procedure must be representative of 

typical use, and users will only be 

influenced by instructions publicly 

available at the time of the test. DOE is 

proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.14 as set out in 

the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed definition for 

‘‘measured charge capacity’’ is based on 

the ‘‘measured charge capacity’’ 

definition from the CEC test procedure, 

but replaces the term ‘‘rate’’ with 

‘‘current’’ and ‘‘final’’ with ‘‘specified 

end-of-discharge.’’ These changes were 

made to clarify the definition by 

replacing general words with words that 

are more specific. In the proposed test 

procedure, the measured charge 

capacity must be calculated for those 

batteries that do not have a rated charge 

capacity. DOE is proposing to define 

this term in Y, section 2.15, as set out 

in the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed definition for ‘‘power 

factor’’ has been taken verbatim from the 

‘‘power factor’’ definition in the CEC test 

procedure. This definition is also 

present in IEEE standard 1515–2000 as 

‘‘power factor (true).’’ The power factor 

is recorded when performing the charge 

mode and battery maintenance mode 

test. DOE is proposing to define this 

term in appendix Y, section 2.20 as set 

out in the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed definition for ‘‘rated 

battery voltage’’ is based on the ‘‘rated 

battery voltage’’ definition from the CEC 

test procedure. The definition varies 

from the CEC definition in that it 

replaces the phrase ‘‘a batch of batteries 

includes series connections’’ with ‘‘there 

are multiple batteries that are connected 

in series,’’ replaces ‘‘batch’’ with 

‘‘batteries,’’ and replaces ‘‘times’’ with 

‘‘multiplied by.’’ The rated battery 

voltage is recorded before testing and is 

used to calculate rated energy capacity. 

DOE is proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.21 as set out in 

the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed definition for ‘‘rated 

charge capacity’’ is based on the ‘‘rated 

charge capacity’’ definition from the 

CEC test procedure. DOE is proposing to 

add the clause ‘‘the manufacturer states 

the battery can store under specified test 

conditions,’’ to clarify the definition. 

DOE is also proposing to replace the 

phrase ‘‘a batch of batteries included 

parallel connections’’ with ‘‘there are 

multiple batteries that are connected in 

parallel,’’ ‘‘batch’’ with ‘‘batteries,’’ and 

‘‘times’’ with ‘‘multiplied by.’’ The rated 

charge capacity is used in the proposed 

test procedure to select the battery used 

for testing when there are no batteries 

packaged with the charger and there are 

multiple batteries with the lowest rated 

voltage. DOE is proposing to define this 

term in appendix Y, section 2.22 as set 

out in the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

The proposed definition for ‘‘rated 

energy capacity’’ has been taken 

verbatim from the ‘‘calculated energy 

capacity’’ definition in the CEC test 

procedure. DOE changed the word 

‘‘calculated’’ to ‘‘rated’’ to emphasize that 

the value is computed using only rated 

values. The definition is proposed to 

avoid confusion with the term 

‘‘measured charge capacity.’’ DOE is 

proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.23 as set out in 

the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

DOE also proposes defining ‘‘total 

harmonic distortion (THD),’’ clarifying 

the input voltage requirements of the 

proposed test procedure. A variation of 

the definition (with an associated 

equation) is also present in IEEE 

standard 1515–2000 as well as in 

appendix Z. The inclusion of a THD 

requirement ensures the presence of a 

sufficiently sinusoidal input voltage 

waveform, which is necessary for 

repeatability. This factor is important 

when measuring the energy use of these 

products because the energy 

consumption of BCs depends on the 

shape of the input voltage waveform. 

The THD of the input voltage is required 

to be ≤ 2%, up to and including the 13th 

harmonic.23 The proposed definition for 

this term would appear in appendix Z, 

section 2.25 and reads as set out in the 

regulatory text of this NOPR. 

DOE proposes defining the term ‘‘unit 

under test (UUT)’’ in its battery charger 

test procedure based on the CEC test 

procedure definition, to clarify the term. 

The abbreviation ‘‘UUT’’ is defined in 

IEEE standard 1515–2000 and used 

throughout the proposed test procedure 

in place of the terms ‘‘battery charger’’ 

and ‘‘test battery.’’ This proposed change 

would simplify the test procedure text. 

DOE is proposing to define this term in 

appendix Y, section 2.26 as set out in 

the regulatory text of this NOPR. 

4. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions 

Appendix Y, section 3 currently 

specifies that the test apparatus, 

standard testing conditions, and 

instructions for testing battery chargers 

shall conform to the requirements 

specified in section 4, ‘‘Standard Testing 

Conditions,’’ of the EPA’s ‘‘Test 

Methodology for Determining the 

Energy Performance of Battery Charging 

Systems.’’ As described below, DOE is 

proposing to remove the existing test 

apparatus and general instruction, and 

include sections I and II (the standard 

test conditions and battery charger 

system set up) of part 1 of the CEC test 

procedure, with minor revisions to 

improve the procedure’s clarity. 

(a) Confidence Intervals 

The CEC test procedure specifies that 

all ‘‘[m]easurements of active power of 

0.5 W or greater shall be made with an 

uncertainty of ≤ 2%. Measurements of 

active power of less than 0.5 W shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 0.01 W.’’ 

However, the CEC test procedure does 

not specify any confidence levels to 

which these uncertainty measurements 

must adhere. The proposed uncertainty 

requirements for testing equipment 

specified are equivalent to those in the 

current CEC test procedure, with the 

addition of an explicit confidence 

qualifier. This qualifier, which is 

necessary when expressing uncertainty 

in measurement, is the 95 percent 

confidence level customarily employed 

in experimental work, which accounts 

for errors that fall within two standard 

deviations of the mean of a normal 

distribution. The proposed uncertainty 

requirements would make the test 

procedure consistent with standard 

engineering practice. 

(b) Temperature 

The temperature range currently 

specified in the CEC test procedure is 20 

°C ± 5 °C. However, this low 

temperature range is difficult to 

maintain while testing in warmer 

climates. DOE is proposing raising the 

temperature specifications to 25 °C ± 

5 °C to create a testing environment that 

is achievable across diverse climates. 

All of the consumer BC tests conducted 

to date by parties other than DOE 24 and 

mentioned at the framework document 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16969 

25Unless controlled by a timer, a BC designed for 

a specific voltage, chemistry, and physical package 

can charge all batteries of the same voltage, 

chemistry, and physical package, regardless of 

capacity. The only difference will be the charge 

time, which will increase with battery charge 

capacity. 

public meeting (PG&E, No. 13 at p. 6) 

were performed at temperatures 

between 20 and 27 degrees Celsius, 

which would be covered by the higher 

temperature range proposed in today’s 

notice. By adjusting the temperature 

control within the test room in this 

manner, the testing burden will be 

lessened without sacrificing the 

accuracy and repeatability of the test 

procedure. 

(c) AC Input Voltage and Frequency 

The CEC test procedure requires, 

when possible, the testing of units that 

accept AC line-voltage input at two 

voltage and frequency combinations, 

115 volts at 60 hertz and 230 volts at 50 

hertz. As mentioned in section III.B.2., 

above, an ITI member company 

commented that testing should be 

limited to the U.S. line voltage (115 

volts, 60 hertz) (ITI member, No. 17 at 

p. 1). 

Since DOE’s scope of coverage 

extends only to consumer BCs operating 

in the United States, DOE is proposing 

to require that BCs only be tested at the 

U.S. AC line voltage, 115V at 60Hz, 

even if they can also be operated at 

other voltages and frequencies (for 

worldwide use). This change will 

harmonize the DOE BC test procedure 

with the current EPS test procedure, 

which also specifies that ‘‘[t]he UUT 

shall be tested at 115 V [volts] at 60 Hz 

[hertz].’’ Since DOE is already proposing 

to limit the scope of its test procedure 

to cover BCs intended for operation at 

U.S. AC line voltage—whether or not 

they are also capable of operation at 

other voltages—limiting the testing to 

the U.S. input voltage and frequency 

should reduce the testing burden by half 

for BCs with universal input voltage 

(i.e., capable of operating at both 115 

and 230 volts) without impacting the 

representativeness of the test procedure. 

(d) Charge Rate Selection 

Section II.A (general setup) of part 1 

of the CEC test procedure requires that, 

‘‘If the battery charger has user controls 

to select from two or more charge rates 

(such as regular or fast charge) or 

different charge currents, the test shall 

be conducted with each of the possible 

choices.’’ However, this option presents 

a large burden on manufacturers as each 

test can take over 24 hours to complete, 

which could take a manufacturer several 

days to complete testing of a single unit. 

DOE believes that, given a choice, 

users will opt for the fastest charge that 

does not impact the battery’s long term 

health, as evidenced by the popularity 

of successively faster chargers in the 

market. In light of this observation, to 

limit the test procedure burden while 

still maintaining its representativeness, 

DOE is proposing that, if the battery 

charger has user controls to select from 

two or more charge rates, the test shall 

be conducted at the fastest charge rate 

that is recommended by the 

manufacturer for everyday use. 

(e) Battery Selection 

Section II.C of part 1 of the CEC test 

procedure requires that multi-voltage, 

multi-port, and/or multi-capacity 

chargers be tested numerous times, with 

a variety of batteries. Again, since each 

test takes over 24 hours, following this 

aspect of the CEC procedure will result 

in more than three days of testing for 

some BCs. Interested parties also 

acknowledge the issue: an ITI member 

suggested that in cases where a battery 

charger offers multiple outputs, but one 

output is the primary intended scenario, 

the BC should only be tested using that 

output. (ITI member, No. 17 at p. 1) 

Since any BC is a ‘‘multi-capacity’’ 

charger,25 this burden is not limited to 

just a few specialty BCs. Manufacturers 

of products with user-replaceable 

batteries (e.g., cellular telephones, 

power tools, etc.) tend to sell highcapacity add-on batteries, and the 

capacity of the replacement batteries 

increases gradually as battery 

technology improves with time. As a 

result, many BCs would need to be 

tested twice (once with the lowest and 

once with the highest capacity battery), 

which is a step included in the CEC test 

procedure. Furthermore, these BCs may 

require re-testing as new higher-capacity 

batteries are released after the 

manufacture of the original product. To 

reduce the number of tests, DOE is 

focusing on the typical usage scenario— 

i.e., testing with the battery packaged 

with the charger. Since most users will 

not purchase the additional highercapacity battery, the proposed DOE test 

procedure would require testing using 

only the battery packaged with the 

charger. 

If multiple batteries or no batteries are 

packaged with the charger, DOE 

proposes selecting batteries for testing 

from those recommended for use with 

the BC by the manufacturer. In the 

absence of any recommendation, the 

batteries for test would be selected from 

any suitable for use with the charger. If 

these batteries vary in voltage or 

capacity, the charger would be tested 

with (1) The lowest voltage, lowest 

capacity battery; (2) the highest voltage, 

lowest capacity battery; and (3) the 

highest total energy capacity battery, as 

applicable. In each case, the term 

‘‘battery’’ refers to one or more cells in 

one or more separate enclosures. 

The proposed battery selection 

procedure described above for chargers 

packaged either with multiple or no 

batteries is consistent with section II.C 

of part 1 of the CEC test procedure. 

Because this procedure may result in 

multiple tests spanning several days for 

a single charger, DOE is also considering 

an alternative battery selection 

procedure that would require that the 

BC only be tested with the most typical 

battery intended for use with the BC. 

This alternative approach would 

attempt to reduce the testing burden 

while measuring ‘‘a representative 

average use cycle,’’ as required by 

statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

Nonetheless, due to insufficient 

information regarding the typical 

batteries used with chargers that are 

packaged with multiple batteries or 

packaged without batteries, DOE is 

unable to ensure that tests limited to 

just one battery (e.g., the lowest capacity 

battery) would be representative of 

typical use. Therefore, DOE welcomes 

comments from interested parties on (1) 

the typical use of chargers for standardsized, AA and AAA batteries and 12 

volt lead-acid batteries, which are used 

with a variety of batteries, and (2) the 

likely burden due to the proposed 

battery selection method, which is 

based on the CEC test procedure. 

(f) Non-Battery Charging Functions 

The proposed active mode BC test 

procedure retains the instructions 

concerning additional functionality 

from section II.D of part 1 of the CEC 

test procedure, which requires the tester 

to turn off any user-controlled functions 

and disconnect all auxiliary electrical 

connections to the BC. These 

instructions address the two types of 

additional functionality typically 

included with battery chargers, i.e., 

connections with other systems (e.g., 

cordless telephone base) and user 

interaction (e.g., power tool charger 

radio). 

The first type of additional 

functionality is exemplified by cordless 

telephone bases that monitor the state of 

the telephone line and/or store 

voicemail messages. These types of 

devices provide an added utility 

through connection with other systems, 

e.g., the telephone line. Because the 

additional functionality relies on the 

connection to other parts of the system, 

manufacturers can use a physical 

disconnection (required by the proposed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

26This parameter corresponds to the amount of 

charge a battery can store and is a function of the 

size and chemical composition of the battery. The 

testing technician must obtain this parameter to 

calculate the discharge current necessary to 

measure the battery energy during the discharge 

test. 

BC active mode test procedure) as a 

signal to the device to disable the 

additional functionality and reduce 

power consumption to the level of a BC 

that is not equipped with that additional 

functionality. 

The second type of additional 

functionality is exemplified by a power 

tool charger radio that provides an 

interface for operation by the user. 

Because this type of device already 

relies on users to operate it, a 

manufacturer should be able to add or 

repurpose one of the interface elements 

to allow a user (and tester) to turn off 

the additional functionality of the 

device. Doing so would reduce the 

device’s power consumption to a level 

comparable with BCs and EPSs without 

the additional functionality. In either 

case, the energy consumption of the 

additional functionality can be 

substantially reduced, if not eliminated, 

which would reduce the energy 

consumption of the BC to the level of 

similar BCs equipped without 

additional functionality. 

If adopted, the instructions in section 

4.4 of the proposed test procedure 

would allow the BC to decrease the 

energy consumption of any additional 

functionality to a negligible level. 

Therefore, DOE does not expect to make 

any allowances for energy consumption 

due to additional functionality in the 

corresponding energy conservation 

standard. Nonetheless, DOE welcomes 

suggestions from interested parties on 

how it should address additional 

functionality. 

(g) Determining the Charge Capacity of 

Batteries with No Rating 

Section II.G of the CEC test procedure 

requires the use of trial-and-error to 

estimate the charge capacity 26 of 

batteries when it is not provided by the 

manufacturer. Reaching results in this 

manner would likely not be repeatable. 

Therefore, the method that DOE is 

proposing today explicitly lays out the 

iterative steps required to measure the 

battery capacity, providing a clear 

process which will likely limit the time 

required to determine the charge 

capacity and produce a more repeatable 

result than the trial-and-error method. 

5. Test Measurement 

Appendix Y, section 4 is currently 

divided into sections (a), (b), (c), and 

(d), as discussed above. DOE is 

proposing to: (1) Remove the existing 

inactive mode energy consumption 

measurement in section 4(a); (2) retain 

sections 4(c) and 4(d), which contain 

the standby and off mode test 

procedures; and (3) insert section III of 

part 1 of the CEC test procedure, 

‘‘Measuring the Battery Charger System 

Efficiency,’’ into section 4(b) with minor 

revisions for clarity and the following 

substantive modifications. Finally, DOE 

proposes renumbering the resulting 

section 4 for ease of reference and use 

by testing technicians. 

(a) Removing Inactive Mode Energy 

Consumption Test Apparatus and 

Measurement 

The inactive mode energy 

consumption measurement in section 

4(a) of appendix Y requires integrating 

the input power to the BC over 

numerous hours in maintenance and nobattery modes and dividing it by the 

battery energy measured during 

discharge, resulting in a non-active 

energy ratio. The standby and off mode 

test procedure final rule added a 

requirement to measure standby (nobattery) and off mode energy 

consumption, 74 FR 13334, while 

today’s proposal includes requirements 

to measure active (charge) and 

maintenance modes. Because these test 

procedure updates would collectively 

result in a BC test procedure that 

measures battery charger energy 

consumption in all four modes—active 

(charge), maintenance, standby (nobattery), and off—there is no longer a 

continued need for the inactive mode 

test procedure adopted on December 8, 

2006. Therefore, in today’s notice, DOE 

proposes to strike the inactive mode 

energy consumption measurement from 

section 4(a). 

(b) Charge Test Duration 

During the 2009 public meeting, DOE 

sought comment on shortening the 24- 

hour test period specified in the CEC 

procedure. The Power Tool Institute 

(PTI) saw no problem in shortening the 

maintenance mode test period (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 190), whereas 

AHAM and Wahl Clipper Corporation 

(Wahl) commented that a 24-hour 

charge cycle should be used as the basis 

for measuring active mode energy 

consumption. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; 

Wahl, No. 23 at p. 1) Ecos Consulting 

(Ecos) added that a shorter test period 

was considered during the development 

of the CEC procedure but explained that 

it was not feasible to incorporate a 

shorter test period since many batteries 

have a much longer charge time. (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 191–92) PTI 

specifically cited nickel-cadmium as an 

example of a battery chemistry that 

requires charge of at least 16 hours, 

cautioning that if the active charge 

window were shortened, only a portion 

of the charge energy would be captured 

by the measurement. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

14 at p. 190) Ecos also indicated that 

although charge indicator lights are 

reliable determinants of active mode 

duration, they are only included in 

roughly one-third of chargers and 

therefore cannot be relied on to shorten 

the measurement period in all cases. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 193) 

Although a shortened test period 

would reduce the burden on 

manufacturers, the 24-hour charge 

energy metric provides uniformity 

between tests and enables BCs for 

cellular telephones to be easily 

compared with BCs for cordless 

telephones, regardless of how long each 

BC spends actually charging a battery. 

In today’s notice, DOE is proposing 

using a 24-hour charge and maintenance 

energy measurement consistent with the 

CEC test procedure, but is inviting 

interested parties to comment on 

incorporating an optional, shorter test 

period, described below. 

To accommodate the comments of 

interested parties, DOE is proposing to 

retain the 24-hour test period but seeks 

comment on possibly supplementing it 

with an optional shortened test period 

that can be used when feasible. The 

proposal outlines scenarios where a 

shorter test period would be 

appropriate. These scenarios would 

require that a testing technician must 

determine that the BC is in steady-state 

operation in maintenance mode, at 

which point the input power no longer 

changes. In other words, continuing the 

test past this point under this scenario 

would not yield any new information 

regarding the energy consumption 

characteristics of the tested unit. 

In the shortened test procedure, the 

BC would undergo an initial charging 

period with a duration determined by 

the state of a charge indicator light, 

manufacturers’ instructions, or, in the 

absence of the above, a minimum of 4 

hours. Following this, the technician 

would inspect the input power to the 

BC, and the BC would be in a steady 

state if its input power does not vary by 

more than 2 percent over a 1-hour 

period. A relatively constant input 

power over a significant length of time 

indicates that the BC has finished 

charging the battery and entered 

maintenance mode. Since, absent user 

interaction, the BC is expected to 

remain in this mode for all future time, 

it should be possible to stop the test 

early and extrapolate the energy 

measurement to the full 24-hour period. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16971 

27Of the nine slow chargers mentioned above, all 

had higher extrapolated than measured 24-hour 

energy consumption, some by as much as 30 

percent. 

28This generalization does not apply to chargers 

such as the fast charge mentioned above, which 

periodically wake up during maintenance mode. 

This extrapolation is done by taking 

the energy consumption from the 

beginning of the test to the point when 

the BC entered steady-state operation 

and adding it to the steady-state 

maintenance mode power multiplied by 

the remaining number of hours in the 

test. This procedure is shown in detail 

in Eq. 1, below. 

EE P EXTRAPOLATED CHARGE tt 24 STEADY-STATE MAINT.STEADY-STA

0 = + = TE STEADY-STATE × − ( ) 24 1 h Eq. t

Where: 

E24 EXTRAPOLATED is the 24-hour energy 

estimate calculated through 

extrapolation; 

tSTEADY-STATE is the time at which the charger 

entered steady-state operation; 

E CHARGE | t=0

tSTEADY-STATE is the energy consumption 

from the beginning of the test to the point 

when the BC entered steady-state operation 

and the test was interrupted; 

PMAINT.STEADY-STATE is the maintenance power 

measured in steady state. 

In this manner, the testing time for 

some BCs may be shortened, freeing 

valuable laboratory equipment without 

impacting the uniformity of the 24-hour 

metric. DOE evaluated the results of 

shortening the test method for six ‘‘fast’’ 

battery chargers (e.g., lithium-ion 

battery chargers for notebook computer 

and DVD player applications) by 

utilizing data from 24-hour tests. DOE 

had simulated the effects of shortening 

the test period according to the 

proposed method described above, from 

24 hours to an average of 5.7 hours, 

resulting in a time savings of 18.3 hours 

on average. Using only data obtained 

during these shortened test periods DOE 

then extrapolated 24-hour energy 

consumption. The calculated 24-hour 

energy consumption differed from the 

measured 24-hour energy consumption 

by an average of ¥1.1 percent, but with 

a range of ¥0.1 to +6.5 percent. 

The 24-hour energy consumption of 

the fast BC with the greatest variation 

was calculated to be 6.5 percent lower 

with the shortened test method than 

that measured with the full 24-hour test 

method. This BC met the steady state 

criteria (meaning the unit was in 

maintenance mode) that allowed the 

shortened test period to be used. 

However, once in maintenance mode, 

the BC would periodically ‘‘wake up,’’ 

presumably to provide pulses energy to 

the battery to counteract any selfdischarge. Since these pluses happened 

once the unit was in maintenance mode, 

they were not captured by the shortened 

test procedure (which would have 

terminated the test soon after the BC 

had entered maintenance mode). 

Therefore, the extrapolated 24-hour 

energy consumption was lower than the 

measured 24-hour energy consumption. 

Furthermore, DOE realizes that using 

the above method to shorten the 

measurement period for some ‘‘slow’’ 

chargers may also result in an 

extrapolated 24-hour energy 

consumption that differs widely from 

the measured 24-hour energy. For 

example, when the above test method 

was applied to nine slow chargers for 

nickel-metal hydride and lead-acid 

batteries, the extrapolated 24-hour 

energy consumption differs by 11.2 

percent from the measured 24-hour 

energy on average. 

In general, the input power to the BC 

during charging decreases with time, 

stopping the test early and extrapolating 

over the full 24 hours will tend to result 

in a higher calculated 24-hour energy 

consumption unless the BC has entered 

steady state.27 Therefore, it is not in the 

manufacturer’s interest to abuse this 

method and shorten the test 

inappropriately, as doing so will 

typically result in worse measured 

performance.28 Furthermore, any DOE 

enforcement testing will be performed 

using only the full 24-hour test 

procedure as the method to determine 

compliance with the standard. 

Because of the potential for significant 

discrepancies in results between the 

shortened and full, 24-hour 

measurement methods, DOE is not 

proposing to depart from the 24-hour 

method currently in the CEC test 

procedure. Nonetheless, DOE would 

like to invite interested parties to 

comment on allowing the shortened test 

method for units that meet the steady 

state criteria described above. After 

reviewing the comments DOE will 

consider incorporating this latter test 

method into the test procedure in the 

final rule. In particular, DOE would be 

interested in (1) a comparison of testing 

burden for the shortened and full testing 

methods, as well as (2) an assessment of 

the measurement variability between 

the two methods across a wide range of 

BCs. 

(c) Battery Conditioning 

Section III.A of part 1 of the CEC test 

procedure specifies that battery 

conditioning must be performed on all 

batteries, with the exception of leadacid or lithium-based batteries. Battery 

conditioning is the process by which the 

battery is cycled several times prior to 

testing to permit the battery to reach its 

specified capacity. By conditioning the 

battery in this manner, any taken 

measurement will be representative of 

typical use. DOE’s proposed active 

mode test procedure requires that the 

battery undergo two full charges 

followed by two full discharges, ending 

on a discharge. The third charge present 

in section III.A of the CEC test 

procedure has been removed from the 

proposal pursuant to the reversed 

testing order described in section III.B.5. 

(e), below. 

(d) Battery Preparation 

Section III.B of the CEC test procedure 

has a provision that requires preparing 

the battery for testing by performing a 

controlled discharge to a specified endof-discharge voltage. This preparatory 

step ensures that the BC test begins and 

ends with the battery at the same known 

state—namely, fully discharged—such 

that all the energy consumed during the 

charge test can be fairly compared to the 

energy obtained from the battery during 

the discharge test. DOE’s proposed 

active mode test procedure would 

likewise prepare the battery by bringing 

it to a known state prior to starting the 

test. However, the battery preparation 

would consist of charging the battery 

instead of discharging due to the 

proposed reversed testing order 

described below. 

(e) Reversed Testing Order 

In DOE’s proposed BC active mode 

test procedure, the discharge test would 

be performed prior to the charge test, in 

reverse order of the CEC test procedure: 

The battery would be (1) Conditioned, if 

necessary; (2) charged until full by the 

BC under test, in preparation for the 

measurement; (3) discharged; and (4) 

recharged by the BC under test. The 

discharge energy in step (3) and the 

input power to the BC in step (4), above, 

would be measured. The proposed 

reversal of the test order will have no 

impact on the measured charge or 

discharge energy because the BC-battery 

system is deterministic and will behave 

in the same manner given the same 

inputs and environmental conditions. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02AP10.000</MATH>
16972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

29See, for example: A123 Systems, ‘‘High Power 

Lithium Ion ANR26650M1A,’’ April 2009, http:// 

www.a123systems.com/cms/product/pdf/1/ 

ANR26650M1A_Datasheet_APRIL_2009.pdf. 

30 ‘‘Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 

2.0,’’ April 27, 2000, p. 174. http://www.usb.org/ 

developers/docs/usb_20_122909-2.zip. 

The energy recovered from the battery 

during discharge will be the same 

whether it is measured once or many 

times (ignoring the long-term effects of 

storage or cycling), as will the charge 

energy consumed by the charger. 

Therefore, the order in which these 

steps are performed does not matter, as 

long as the measurement encompasses 

the entirety of a charge-discharge or 

discharge-charge cycle and all the 

energy consumed by the charger is 

accounted for during discharge, and 

vice-versa. 

While reversing the testing order such 

that the discharge is performed prior to 

the charge would have no impact on the 

measurement results, it would allow the 

preparatory step to be a charge rather 

than a discharge. This distinction is 

important because it allows preparation 

to be conducted in the UUT, rather than 

a battery analyzer, and require less test 

equipment time. Thus, the proposed test 

procedure would further decrease 

testing burden without impacting 

accuracy. 

(f) End of Discharge for Other 

Chemistries 

Table D in part 1 of the CEC test 

procedure instructs that the end-ofdischarge voltage for any battery 

chemistry not listed explicitly in the 

table be found ‘‘Per appropriate IEC 

standard.’’ However, DOE cannot 

incorporate in its test procedure an 

open-ended reference to a non-existent 

standard. To address this concern, DOE 

spoke with members of industry and 

reviewed the literature 29 to identify 

which chemistries are likely to become 

popular in the near future as well as the 

end-of-discharge voltages associated 

with them. These chemistries would be 

explicitly included in the table of endof-discharge voltages in the proposed 

test procedure. The additional 

chemistries would include 

nanophosphate lithium-ion and silverzinc. If batteries of other chemistries are 

developed in the future, they would be 

addressed through the waiver process or 

a revision to the test procedure. DOE 

invites comments on whether the 

battery chemistries and associated 

discharge voltages contained in its 

proposed list are sufficient or require 

modification. 

C. Review of Battery Charger and 

External Power Supply Standby and Off 

Mode Test Procedures 

In the March 2009 final rule, DOE 

adopted a 1-hour test duration for the 

BC standby and off mode tests, based on 

the abbreviated test method in the EPA’s 

‘‘Test Methodology for Determining the 

Energy Performance of Battery Charging 

Systems, December 2005,’’ previously 

incorporated by reference into appendix 

Y. 74 FR 13335. However, during the 

2008 standby and off mode public 

meeting, interested parties suggested 

that the proposed 1-hour testing period 

be shortened further. Nonetheless, as 

mentioned in the March 2009 final rule, 

the BC standby mode test procedure 

must take into account equipment warm 

up and low-frequency pulsed operation 

to produce accurate and repeatable 

measurement results. 74 FR 13324. 

In today’s notice, DOE proposes 

amending the test period to a 30-minute 

warm up period followed by a 10- 

minute measurement period. This 

proposed modification would 

harmonize DOE’s standby and off mode 

measurement procedures with sections 

IV.B and IV.C in part 1 of the optional 

CEC BC test procedure. Abbreviating the 

measurement period from 1 hour to 10 

minutes will not affect the accuracy of 

the test because the amended test 

procedures would retain a 30-minute 

warm up period. Variations in 

component efficiency due to 

temperature are the most common 

reason for changes in BC energy 

consumption in standby and off modes, 

and the 30-minute warm up period 

would be sufficient to permit the input 

power of most BCs to stabilize. DOE 

recognizes that further instabilities 

(pulses) in energy consumption in 

standby and off modes may be caused 

by periodic operation of certain BC 

functions, as when a BC occasionally 

checks its output for the presence of the 

battery. In general, there is always a 

potential for a limited-time test 

procedure to fail to capture a behavior 

occurring at an arbitrary time, such that 

these pulses might be captured over a 

1-hour measurement period but not in a 

10-minute period. DOE has not, 

however, encountered any such cases in 

practice. 

Based on the above reasons, DOE 

believes that the shortened test 

measurement will reduce testing 

burdens on manufacturers while 

providing an accurate and repeatable 

test. Further, DOE is proposing to retain 

the remainder of its BC standby and off 

mode test procedure. Finally, DOE is 

not proposing any changes to the 

standby and off mode test procedures 

for EPSs. The proposed measurement 

periods for these test procedures are 

only as long as necessary to obtain a 

repeatable result and would not impose 

an additional burden on manufacturers, 

as both are based on and incorporate by 

reference the no-load measurement in 

the EPA single-voltage EPS test 

procedure. DOE seeks comment on the 

merits of this aspect of today’s proposal. 

D. Review of the Single-Voltage External 

Power Supply Test Procedure 

While DOE is interested in applying 

its single-voltage EPS test procedure 

(appendix Z to subpart B of 10 CFR part 

430) to all single-voltage EPSs subject to 

current or potential future standards, 

DOE recognizes that some EPSs may not 

be testable under the existing test 

procedure in a representative or 

repeatable manner. In particular, the 

following devices may pose issues for 

the current procedure: (1) EPSs that 

communicate with their loads; (2) EPSs 

that limit their output current below 

that specified on the nameplate; and (3) 

high-power EPSs that do not display a 

clear maximum output power on their 

nameplates. A discussion of these three 

types of EPSs follows, along with test 

procedure changes necessary to 

accommodate them. DOE is considering 

adopting these changes pending 

comment from interested parties. DOE is 

also proposing to redefine ‘‘active 

power’’ for consistency with appendix Y 

and industry standards. 

1. EPSs That Communicate With Their 

Loads 

Some EPSs used for powering cellular 

telephones, notebook computers, and 

other consumer electronic products use 

USB and other protocols that require 

communication between the EPS and its 

load. Currently, DOE’s single-voltage 

EPS test procedure incorporates by 

reference sections 4 and 5 of the CEC 

single-voltage EPS test procedure. 

Within these incorporated sections, the 

test procedure requires that ‘‘the tests 

should be conducted on the two output 

wires that supply the output power 

* * * [t]he other wires * * * should be 

left electrically disconnected.’’ 

This requirement is problematic, 

however, because it may interfere with 

the operation of EPSs that require 

additional output wires for 

communication with their loads. For 

example, the USB specification 30

requires devices to communicate over 

the data lines prior to transferring 

significant amounts of power (in excess 

of 1 ‘‘unit load’’ or approximately 0.5 

watts). DOE is concerned that by 

requiring the disconnection of data 

lines, the existing single-voltage EPS 

test procedure may not test EPSs that 

use interfaces such as a USB in a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16973 

31 GSM Association, ‘‘Mobile Industry Unites to 

Drive Universal Charging Solution for Mobile 

Phones,’’ GSM World, February 17, 2009. 

32Manufacturers typically specify the 

performance of an EPS through datasheets and 

other marketing materials. 

manner that would be representative of 

their power consumption when 

operating. 

The communication issue is not 

limited to EPSs with multiple sets of 

conductors. In some cases (e.g., EPSs for 

some notebook computers), the 

communication between an EPS and its 

load can occur over the same set of 

conductors that transfer power, using an 

AC-coupled signal. Initial evaluations 

indicate that such communication may 

be used to set the output voltage of an 

EPS intended for use with multiple 

computers made by the same 

manufacturer. Because these EPSs may 

need to identify their load prior to 

operation, measurements conducted in 

the laboratory without the intended load 

(as required by the DOE test procedure) 

may not be representative of typical use. 

DOE is uncertain of the extent of this 

problem in practice. In particular, 

although the cellular telephone industry 

is planning to adopt the USB interface 

as a ‘‘universal charging solution’’ for all 

handsets by 2012,31 DOE’s analysis of 

EPSs for cellular applications indicates 

that the transition to USB-compliant 

EPSs has not yet begun. Examination of 

eight mobile phone EPSs with 

connectors with four or more pins 

(including mini-USB connectors) 

revealed that in only one case were 

these pins connected to any wires in the 

output cable. Even in the single case of 

multiple pairs of conductors, the EPS 

performed as specified when tested 

according to the DOE test procedure 

(i.e., with the additional wires 

disconnected), implying that no 

communication with the load was 

necessary for specified operation. 

Similarly, DOE has only been able to 

identify two models of EPSs for 

notebook computers that communicate 

with their loads. These observations 

lead DOE to believe that these products 

are not currently popular. 

Even though power supplies that 

communicate with their loads are a 

rarity today, DOE does foresee a need 

for the test procedure to accommodate 

them in the future. To address this need, 

DOE is considering amending the 

single-voltage EPS test procedure by 

permitting manufacturers to supply 

additional connection instructions or 

fixtures for testing EPSs that require 

communication with the load. Today’s 

notice does not contain a specific 

proposal for amending the test 

procedure but solicits comments from 

interested parties on specific EPSs that 

cannot be tested in a representative 

manner according to the DOE singlevoltage EPS test procedure, due to the 

test procedure’s requirements that the 

EPS be tested with a dummy load and 

that all additional conductors be 

disconnected. DOE is also seeking 

comments regarding specific changes 

that the procedures would need to 

permit the testing of these devices. Any 

amendments to the test procedure in 

this regard would only apply to EPSs 

that must communicate with their loads 

and would have no impact on existing 

standards for Class A EPSs. 

2. EPSs With Output Current Limiting 

As mentioned in section II.C., some 

EPSs limit their output current below 

that which is specified on their 

nameplate or in manufacturer 

datasheets. Whether due to 

manufacturing variation or another 

cause, this situation can be problematic 

because the current DOE test procedure 

may be unable to consistently measure 

the efficiency of these EPSs. The current 

DOE single-voltage EPS test procedure 

incorporates by reference the CEC 

single-voltage EPS test procedure and 

requires testing at fixed percentages (0, 

25, 50, 75, and 100 percent) of 

nameplate output current. However, the 

test procedure does not specify what to 

do in cases when the EPS limits output 

current as described above, such that it 

is unable to output 100 percent or even 

75 percent of its nameplate output 

current—which would prevent one from 

obtaining one or more efficiency 

measurements specified under the 

procedure. 

DOE is considering several changes to 

the single-voltage EPS test procedure 

that would accommodate EPSs that 

limit their output current below that 

listed on the nameplate. In particular, 

DOE is considering adopting one of 

three options: (1) Ignore the loading 

points affected by output current 

limiting when calculating the average 

efficiency; (2) shift the loading points 

affected by output current limiting on a 

case-by-case basis such that they are no 

longer affected by current limiting (i.e., 

if the EPS limits its output current to 90 

percent of nameplate output current, 

calculate the active mode efficiency as 

the average of efficiencies at 25, 50, 75, 

and 90 percent load); or (3) record the 

efficiency as 0 percent for any loading 

points affected by output current 

limiting. DOE welcomes comments from 

interested parties on the prevalence of 

this issue as well as the above three 

proposed amendments under 

consideration. 

3. High-Power EPSs 

The scope of DOE’s single-voltage EPS 

test procedure already permits the 

testing of high-power EPSs, as do most 

of the test setup and test measurement 

instructions. The only limitation that 

DOE has encountered while attempting 

to test high-power EPSs in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure involved 

nameplate output current. As 

mentioned above, the test procedure 

requires the nameplate output current to 

calculate the loading points for 

efficiency measurements. However, 

some high-power EPSs do not specify 

the maximum output current on the 

nameplate. 

DOE partially addressed this issue in 

the standby and off mode test procedure 

final rule by modifying the definition of 

nameplate output current to include the 

output current provided by the 

manufacturer ‘‘if absent from the 

housing’’ of the EPS.32 74 FR 13335. 

However, when manufacturers do 

provide output current information, 

they may specify two maximum values: 

one for intermittent output current and 

another for continuous output current. 

To enable the testing of high-power 

EPSs, DOE is considering making 

changes to the single-voltage EPS test 

procedure that would detail what to do 

in cases when more than one maximum 

output current is specified on the 

nameplate or provided by the 

manufacturer. 

In particular, DOE welcomes 

comments from interested parties on 

whether the situation where both 

intermittent and continuous output 

currents are listed on the EPS nameplate 

or in manufacturer documentation may 

cause confusion. Furthermore, DOE 

welcomes comments from interested 

parties on the potential impact of this 

confusion on the repeatability or 

representativeness of the single-voltage 

EPS test procedure already contained in 

appendix Z. DOE is considering 

amending the nameplate output power 

definition to specify that the maximum 

continuous current should be used as 

the nameplate output current when two 

or more currents are provided but seeks 

comments regarding the merits of this 

approach. 

4. Active Power Definition 

As mentioned in section III.B.3. (c) of 

this notice, DOE is proposing to define 

‘‘active power’’ in section 2 of appendix 

Y based on the definition in IEEE 

standard 1515–2000. The definition in 

IEEE standard 1515–2000 is the widely 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16974 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

accepted industry definition for ‘‘active 

power.’’ However, if adopted, this 

definition would differ from the one 

currently in appendix Z. To harmonize 

the two definitions, DOE is proposing to 

redefine this term in appendix Z, 

section 2.c, as set out in the regulatory 

text of this NOPR. 

E. Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply Test Procedure 

Section 325 of EPCA, as amended by 

section 309 of EISA, directs DOE to 

promulgate a final rule determining 

whether energy conservation standards 

shall be issued for EPSs or ‘‘classes’’ of 

EPSs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(C)) 

Currently, DOE divides EPSs into Class 

A and non-Class A. Under section 301 

of EISA, Congress required that Class A 

power supplies meet specifically 

prescribed standards that became 

effective on July 1, 2008. DOE is 

examining the possibility of developing 

standards for the remaining, non-Class 

A EPSs that are not covered by the 

Congressionally mandated standards. 

Multiple-voltage EPSs (i.e., EPSs that 

provide more than one output voltage 

simultaneously) have the highest 

shipments and widest range of 

consumer product applications of the 

EPSs that fall outside of Class A. 

Because it must develop test procedures 

either prior to (or concurrently with) the 

development of an efficiency standard 

for a product, DOE reviewed numerous 

test procedures in 2008 to develop a 

standardized test procedure for these 

products. In the standby and off mode 

NOPR, DOE proposed a multiple-voltage 

EPS test procedure that generally 

followed the structure of the CEC singlevoltage EPS test procedure with some 

modifications specific to multiplevoltage power supplies. See 73 FR 

48064–48068. However, due to the 

limited time available for review, DOE 

was unable to address the comments 

received from interested parties and 

decided not to incorporate these 

elements of the proposed test procedure 

into the March 2009 final rule until 

such time when DOE could provide a 

greater opportunity for comment. 74 FR 

13322. In today’s notice, DOE proposes 

adopting a test procedure generally 

consistent with its August 2008 

proposal in the standby and off mode 

NOPR. However, to accommodate the 

concerns of some interested parties, 

DOE is also proposing several 

modifications to the previously 

proposed approach. 

During the 2008 standby and off mode 

rulemaking, interested parties 

commented that the proposed loading 

conditions (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% 

of full load) may not be appropriate for 

all multiple-voltage EPSs, particularly 

dedicated-use EPSs, because they do not 

provide a representative measure of 

energy consumption. On the other hand, 

when DOE presented a potential loading 

profile (as opposed to the previous 

simple average of the efficiencies 

measured at each of the four activemode loading points) to incorporate into 

the test procedure during its framework 

document public meeting, PG&E 

commented that multiple voltage EPSs 

should be tested over their entire output 

current range to represent the range of 

loading possible with a variety of 

applications. (PG&E et al., No. 20 at p. 

17) 

Therefore, in this notice, DOE is 

proposing measuring efficiency at noload, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of 

nameplate output, but without 

averaging the results as would have 

been required under the previous 

proposal. Instead, the currently 

proposed test procedure would output 

five separate efficiency or input power 

measurements, one for each loading 

point. The results could then be 

weighted during the standards phase of 

the rulemaking to reflect typical usage. 

This multiple-voltage test procedure, 

which otherwise remains unchanged 

from the one DOE proposed in 2008, 

would be incorporated into sections 3(b) 

and 4(b) of appendix Z. 

By removing equal weighting of 

active-mode loading conditions (i.e., 

averaging of efficiency results at each 

nonzero loading point) from the test 

procedure and reporting these metrics 

separately, DOE would be able to 

maintain a flexible and uniform test 

procedure. DOE would then tailor the 

weightings to each product class during 

the standards-setting phase of the 

rulemaking. In addition, by deciding on 

how to address the power supply 

weighting during the standards 

rulemaking, DOE will be able to receive 

additional comments from interested 

parties on the applications that use 

multiple-voltage EPSs and their 

expected usage to help shape the 

agency’s decision on this issue. 

F. Test Procedure Amendments Not 

Proposed in This Notice 

As mentioned above, DOE presented 

potential modifications to the CEC test 

procedure during the framework 

document public meeting. After 

receiving comments, and doing further 

analysis, DOE is no longer proposing 

some of these amendments for 

incorporation into the test procedure. 

Nonetheless, DOE wishes to document 

these potential amendments and the 

comments received on these and other 

issues. These include: 

(1) Accelerating the test procedure 

schedule 

(2) Incorporating usage profiles into 

the test procedure 

(3) Measuring charger output energy 

(4) Measuring alternative depths of 

discharge 

1. Accelerating the Test Procedure 

Schedule 

During the framework document 

public meeting, some interested parties 

requested an expedited rulemaking 

schedule for the BC active mode test 

procedure. In particular AHAM 

suggested that DOE provide 

stakeholders with a revised battery 

charger test procedure, including active 

mode, by September 30, 2009, and that 

DOE complete the test procedure 

updates by the end of 2009 (AHAM, No. 

16 at p. 2, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 

45) AHAM also expressed general 

concern regarding how the Department 

can conduct its analyses for BCs without 

a finalized BC test procedure. (Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 14 at p. 36) 

DOE acknowledges the concerns of 

interested parties regarding an 

accelerated schedule; however, due to 

process requirements, DOE will 

continue with the current rulemaking 

schedule. The target date to issue the BC 

Active Mode Test Procedure remains 

October 31, 2010. 

2. Incorporating Usage Profiles 

Battery charging systems consume 

different amounts of energy while they 

are in different modes, and the amount 

of time that the charger spends in each 

mode varies depending on the 

applications of the end-use project. 

Some BCs, such as those for cell phones 

and media players, spend more time in 

active mode, while others, such as those 

for handheld vacuums and electric 

shavers, remain primarily in 

maintenance or unplugged mode. 

At the framework document public 

meeting, DOE discussed incorporating 

BC usage profiles into the test 

procedure. These usage profiles would 

weight the energy consumption of the 

BC in each mode using the time spent 

in that mode. However, interested 

parties were opposed to the 

incorporation of usage profiles into the 

test procedure, and suggested that the 

consideration of usage profiles be 

instead deferred to the standard. 

Ecos and PG&E et al. did not favor the 

incorporation of usage profiles. PG&E 

felt that it would be difficult to 

incorporate them because of insufficient 

data to arrive at a ‘‘realistic and 

creditable understanding.’’ (Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 14 at p. 161, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

14 at p. 158–59; PG&E et al., No. 20 at 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16975 

p. 15) Ecos similarly stated that they are 

not convinced that usage profiles should 

be used, especially in the test 

procedure. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 

182) PG&E agreed by stating that usage 

profiles may be feasible for future 

rulemakings once more data have been 

collected. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 

178) On the other hand, CEA and Wahl 

suggested that usage profiles should not 

be difficult to obtain. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

14 at p. 178–79) 

The DOE BC test procedure need not 

measure the energy consumption over a 

typical use cycle. It can, for example, 

measure the efficiency under abstract 

test conditions like the EPS test 

procedure. The usage profile can instead 

be incorporated into the energy 

conservation standard as part of the 

routine analysis that DOE applies 

during the standards rulemaking 

process. Adopting a test procedure that 

does not contain usage profiles will 

allow test results to be comparable 

across a wider range of products and 

jurisdictions, as regions with diverse 

consumer usage of BCs would be able to 

use the same test procedure. Because of 

these considerations, DOE is not 

proposing to incorporate usage profiles 

at this time. 

3. Measuring Charger Output Energy 

During the framework document 

public meeting, DOE suggested 

measuring the charger output energy 

rather than the battery output energy in 

order to calculate the total energy 

consumed by the BC during charging. 

DOE felt that measuring at the charger 

output, thereby bypassing the battery, 

could remove some of the variability 

from the measurement. Interested 

parties were unified in opposition to 

this change. 

PG&E, Ecos, PTI, and AHAM all 

supported measuring the energy 

obtained from the battery during 

discharge (per the methods in the 

current ENERGY STAR test procedure 

and Part 1 of the CEC test procedure), 

rather than directly measuring the 

output energy of the charger. PG&E 

further stated that although measuring 

the output energy of the charger would 

be more accurate and easier, it will not 

be ‘‘realistic or representative of how 

things work in the real world’’ and 

stressed that this portion of the CEC test 

procedure should not be altered (Pub. 

Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 162–64; PG&E et 

al., No. 20 at p. 14) An ITI member 

further stated that testing only be done 

with the battery supplied by the OEM, 

not replacement batteries supplied by 

third parties. (ITI member, No. 17 at 

p. 1) 

Ecos commented that battery 

variations are not significant enough to 

warrant amending the CEC test 

procedure and added that variation in 

batteries can be averaged out 

statistically. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at 

p. 171–72) PTI admitted that even 

though battery variability may have an 

effect on the repeatability and 

reproducibility, ‘‘some of that may be 

addressed through some subsequent 

mathematics.’’ (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at 

p.166) AHAM, on the other hand, 

commented that manufacturers should 

not be required to test multiple units, 

which would greatly increase testing 

burden. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 172) 

PTI provided further support for 

measuring battery output energy by 

stating that it may be difficult to access 

the battery terminals, making direct 

measurements of the charger output 

energy impractical. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

14 at p. 164–65) 

Ecos further justified measuring 

battery discharge energy by noting that 

manufacturers choose the battery that 

they include or recommend for testing— 

i.e., the battery is a design option for 

increasing efficiency. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 

14 at p. 167) PTI disagreed, stating that 

the needs of the application to a large 

extent determine the batteries used. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr. No. 14 at pp. 174–75) 

However, because there is little 

variation between batteries once the 

appropriate chemistry has been 

selected, PTI also concluded that 

measuring the output from the charger 

would not be worth the added 

difficulty. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at 

p. 176) 

AHAM and Wahl both recommended 

that the battery energy be measured and 

subsequently subtracted from the 24- 

hour cycle energy (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 

4, Wahl, No. 23 at p. 1), whereas PTI 

suggested that normalizing (i.e., 

dividing) the battery discharge energy 

by the charger input energy provides a 

measurement independent of battery 

size (which varies with the end-use 

application) and battery density (which 

varies with the progress of technology 

over time). (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 

165–66, 174) 

FRIWO and Delta-Q offered 

contrasting comments, with FRIWO 

voicing general support for separate 

testing for batteries and BCs, using a 

dummy load to test the BC, unless the 

design of the product makes this 

impractical (as in the case of power 

tools) (FRIWO, No. 21 at pp. 1–2), while 

Delta-Q commented that the battery 

should be considered independent of 

the battery charging system during 

testing. (Delta-Q, No. 15 at p. 1) 

The goal of the test procedure is to 

measure energy consumed by the 

battery charger during typical use, and 

this energy can be measured directly at 

the output of the charger or indirectly 

by measuring the energy recoverable 

from the battery during discharge. 

Measuring the discharge energy from 

the battery combines charger losses with 

battery losses, resulting in a systemwide measurement that is more 

representative of typical use. Given that 

interested parties voiced overwhelming 

support for system-wide measurements 

and did not express concern about the 

impact of battery variability on 

measurement repeatability, the 

proposed test procedure does not 

incorporate measurement at the output 

of the BC. 

4. Alternative Depth-of-Discharge 

Measurement 

At the framework document public 

meeting, DOE discussed the potential 

for testing BCs with batteries at 40 

percent depth-of-discharge, meaning 60 

percent full. (The term ‘‘depth-ofdischarge’’ refers to the extent to which 

a battery’s usable capacity has been 

discharged.) This potential change 

would model the behavior of consumers 

who recharge batteries before they are 

fully discharged and was inspired by 

part 2 of the CEC test procedure, which 

requires that batteries be tested at 100, 

80, and 40 percent depth-of-discharge. 

Interested parties provided comments 

opposing the alternative depth-ofdischarge; consequently, DOE is 

planning to continue using the 100 

percent depth-of-discharge as the only 

condition for testing. 

Ecos and PG&E opposed to the 

incorporation of a 40 percent depth-ofdischarge (DOD) measurement and 

commented that a measurement from 

additional depths-of-discharge will 

complicate testing and development of 

standards. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 

195–96) PG&E added that a 40 percent 

DOD would be a generalization that is 

difficult to substantiate. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 14 at p. 199–200; PG&E et al., No. 

20 at p. 16) Furthermore, Ecos noted 

that if a new method relying on testing 

at 40 percent DOD is developed, then 

many products will need to be re-tested 

in order to achieve sufficient data to set 

a standard. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 

206) AHAM agreed that establishing a 

typical depth-of-discharge is difficult; 

however, it is not going to be 100 

percent but between 2 and 80 percent. 

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at p. 201) 

Stakeholders also commented on the 

difficulty of consistently discharging a 

battery to an arbitrary depth. Ecos 

further commented that cutoff voltages 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

may be used rather than a percentage 

depth-of-discharge (as in the current 

Part 1 CEC test procedure) to terminate 

the discharge. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at 

p. 206) Wahl commented that the 

appropriate cutoff voltage should 

depend on the battery chemistry, using 

IEC standards as a precedent. (Pub. Mtg. 

Tr., No. 14 at p. 201–02) PTI provided 

a general statement that normalizing 

energy consumption by battery energy 

capacity reduces the effect of depth-ofdischarge on test results. (Pub. Mtg. Tr., 

No. 14 at p. 204) 

Due to the lack of support for 

measurement of BC energy consumption 

while charging batteries with different 

depths-of-discharge, DOE is not 

incorporating such measurement into 

today’s proposal. 

IV. Regulatory Review 

A. Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 

(October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

that Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

test procedure amendments that it 

expects will be used to develop and 

implement future energy conservation 

standards for BCs and EPSs. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) 

and DOE’s implementing regulations at 

10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this 

proposed rule establishes or amends test 

procedures and does 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 is strictly procedural. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that, by law, must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 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:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. As part of this rulemaking, DOE 

examined the existing compliance costs 

already borne by manufacturers and 

compared them to the revised 

compliance costs due to the proposed 

amendments in this NOPR, namely, the 

adoption of new test procedures for BC 

active mode and multiple-voltage EPSs 

and the modification of existing test 

procedures for BCs operating in standby 

and off mode and single-voltage EPSs 

with USB outputs. 

Manufacturers are only required to 

test products subject to standards, and 

there are currently no standards for BCs 

or multiple-voltage EPSs. Until energy 

conservation standards are adopted, no 

entities, small or large, would be 

required to comply with the proposed 

BC and EPS test procedures. Therefore, 

DOE believes that today’s proposed rule 

would not have a ‘‘significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities,’’ and the preparation of a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is neither 

required nor warranted at this point. 

Class A EPSs, however, are subject to 

a standard, and manufacturers, 

including small entities, are required to 

perform testing in accordance with the 

single-voltage EPS test procedure to 

ensure compliance with the standard. 

However, the amendments discussed in 

section III.D. of this notice would not 

significantly change the existing test 

procedure, amending only the testing 

conditions for EPSs with USB outputs. 

DOE does not expect these amendments 

to impose a significant new testing and 

compliance burden and therefore would 

have no large economic impact on a 

significant number of small entities. 

Tentatively concluding and certifying 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, DOE has not 

prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this rulemaking. DOE will provide 

its certification and supporting 

statement of factual basis to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for review 

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

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains an information 

collection requirement subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which has been approved by OMB 

under control number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

collection of test information and 

maintenance of records on regulated 

EPSs based on the certification and 

reporting requirements is estimated to 

average 2 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. Send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate, or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to DOE (see 

ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to: 

Christine_Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 

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. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

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

104–4) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. For 

proposed regulatory actions likely to 

result in a rule that may cause 

expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish estimates of 

the resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

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

Federal agencies to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a proposed 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate.’’ In addition, UMRA requires 

an agency plan for giving notice and 

opportunity for timely input to small 

governments that may be affected before 

establishing a requirement that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16977 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is 

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

Today’s proposed 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. 

F. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any 

proposed rule that may affect family 

well-being. Today’s 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 unnecessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

G. 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) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

H. Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 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. 

I. Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

3516 note) provides for agencies to 

review most disseminations of 

information to the public under 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s proposed rule under 

the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

J. 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 the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

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. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. Therefore, it is not a 

significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

K. Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

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

DOE has determined that this rule 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

L. 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 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. Because the proposed rule 

does not incorporate any commercial 

standards, section 32 does not apply 

here. However, consistent with its 

ordinary practice, DOE intends to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

provide both the Attorney General and 

the FTC a courtesy copy of this 

proposed rule. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this NOPR. To attend the public 

meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945. As 

explained in the ADDRESSES section, 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To 

Speak 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this notice, or who 

is a representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the public 

meeting. Such persons may handdeliver requests to speak to the address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Requests may 

also be sent by mail or email to: Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Persons who wish to speak should 

include in their request a computer 

diskette or CD in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

DOE requests that those persons who 

are scheduled to speak submit a copy of 

their statements at least one week prior 

to the public meeting. DOE may permit 

any person who cannot supply an 

advance copy of this statement to 

participate, if that person has made 

alternative arrangements with the 

Building Technologies Program in 

advance. When necessary, the request to 

give an oral presentation should ask for 

such alternative arrangements. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also employ a professional facilitator to 

aid discussion. The public meeting will 

be conducted in an informal, conference 

style. The meeting will not be a judicial 

or evidentiary public hearing and there 

shall not be discussion of proprietary 

information, costs or prices, market 

share, or other commercial matters 

regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. 

DOE reserves the right to schedule the 

order of presentations and to establish 

the procedures governing the conduct of 

the public meeting. A court reporter will 

record the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. 

At the public meeting, DOE will 

present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for presentations by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each 

participant may present a prepared 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE) before the 

discussion of specific topics. Other 

participants may comment briefly on 

any general statements. At the end of 

the prepared statements on each specific 

topic, participants may clarify their 

statements briefly and comment on 

statements made by others. Participants 

should be prepared to answer questions 

from DOE and other participants. DOE 

representatives may also ask questions 

about other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of procedures needed for the proper 

conduct of the public meeting. 

DOE will make the entire record of 

this proposed rulemaking, including the 

transcript from the public meeting, 

available for inspection at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The official 

transcript will also be posted on the 

Webpage at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

battery_external.html. Anyone may 

purchase a copy of the transcript from 

the transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the proposed rule 

no later than the date provided at the 

beginning of this notice. Comments, 

data, and information submitted to 

DOE’s e-mail address for this 

rulemaking should be provided in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

text (ASCII) file format. Interested 

parties should avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption, 

and wherever possible, comments 

should include the electronic signature 

of the author. Comments, data, and 

information submitted to DOE via mail 

or hand delivery/courier should include 

one signed original paper copy. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

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 two copies: one copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to 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) a date 

upon which such information might 

lose its confidential nature due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE invites comments on 

all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. BC Active Mode 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the proposed approach for 

testing BCs in active mode, in particular 

the adoption and modification of the 

CEC test procedure. (See section III.B.) 

2. Limiting the Scope of the Test 

Procedure 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the proposed limitation of 

scope of the test procedure to 

encompass BCs with DC or U.S. linevoltage AC input. (See section III.B.1.) 

3. BCs for Golf Carts and Other 

Consumer Motive Equipment 

DOE seeks comment on including BCs 

for golf carts and other consumer motive 

equipment batteries in a single test 

procedure based on part 1 of the CEC BC 

test procedure. (See section III.B.2.) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16979 

4. Amendments to Definitions 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the adoption of new 

definitions, in particular any deviation 

from those currently in the CEC test 

procedure. (See section III.B.3.) 

5. Selecting the Charge Rate for Testing 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the proposed modifications to 

section II of the CEC test procedure 

intended to ease testing burden, and in 

particular, recommendations on which 

charge rates are most representative of 

typical use. (See section III.B.4.(d).) 

6. Selecting the Batteries for Testing 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the batteries that are typically 

used with BCs that are packaged with 

multiple batteries or packaged without 

batteries (e.g., AA and AAA and 12 volt 

lead-acid chargers) as well as the testing 

burdens associated with testing such 

chargers multiple times under the 

battery selection method currently in 

the CEC test procedure. (See part 1, 

section III.B.4.(e).) 

7. Non-Battery Charging Functions 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the categorization of nonbattery charging functions and its 

intention not to make allowances for 

energy consumption due to additional 

functionality. (See section III.B.4.(f).) 

8. Procedure for Determining the Charge 

Capacity of Batteries With No Rating 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the proposed revision to 

section II.G of the CEC test procedure to 

explicitly lay out the iterative steps 

required to measure battery capacity 

when none is provided. (See section 

III.B.4.(g).) 

9. Deletion of the Inactive Mode Energy 

Consumption Test Procedure 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the proposal to strike the 

inactive mode energy consumption 

measurement from section 4(a) of 

appendix Y. (See section III.B.5.(a).) 

10. Shortening the BC Charge and 

Maintenance Mode Test 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the optional method of 

shortening the charge and maintenance 

mode test period in the proposed active 

mode amendment to the BC test 

procedure, in particular its impacts on 

testing burden and the accuracy and 

repeatability of the measurement. (See 

section III.B.5.(b).) 

11. Reversing Testing Order 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the proposed reversal of the 

CEC test procedure order, resulting in: 

The battery being (1) conditioned (if 

necessary); (2) charged until full by the 

BC under test, in preparation for the 

measurement; (3) discharged; and (4) 

recharged by the BC under test. The 

discharge energy in step (3) and the 

input power to the BC in step (4), above, 

would be measured. (See section 

III.B.5.(e).) 

12. End-of-Discharge Voltages for Novel 

Chemistries 

DOE seeks comment from interested 

parties on the end-of-discharge voltages 

for the nanophosphate lithium-ion and 

silver-zinc chemistries that are proposed 

for inclusion in Table 5.2 in appendix 

Y. (See section III.B.5.(f).) 

13. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Duration 

DOE also invites comment on the 

proposed test method for measuring 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption for EPSs, including 

whether the duration of the 

measurement is sufficiently long. (See 

section III.C.) 

14. Single-Voltage EPS Test Procedure 

Amendments To Accommodate EPSs 

That Communicate With Their Loads 

DOE seeks comment on the possible 

modification of the single-voltage EPS 

test procedure to accommodate EPSs 

that must communicate with their loads; 

in particular the prevalence of such 

EPSs, the need to amend the test 

procedure to accommodate them, and 

suggestions on amendments. (See 

section III.D.1.) 

15. Further Single-Voltage EPS Test 

Procedure Amendments 

DOE seeks comment on the possible 

further modification of the singlevoltage EPS test procedure to 

accommodate EPSs with output current 

limiting and high output power. (See 

sections III.D.2. and III.D.3.) 

16. Loading Conditions for MultipleVoltage EPSs 

DOE seeks comments on all issues 

pertaining to testing of multiple-voltage 

EPSs. In particular, DOE invites 

comments on reporting 5 separate 

loading conditions (no-load, 25, 50, 75, 

and 100 percent of nameplate output 

current) without averaging the results. 

Additionally, DOE seeks comment on 

how it should weigh these 

measurements in an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

multiple-voltage EPSs. (See section 

III.E.) 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code 

of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

2. In § 430.23 revise paragraph (aa) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(aa) Battery Chargers. The 24-hour 

energy consumption of a battery charger 

in active and maintenance modes, 

expressed in watt-hours, and the power 

consumption of a battery charger in 

maintenance mode, expressed in watts, 

shall be measured in accordance with 

section 5.10 of appendix Y of this 

subpart. The power consumption of a 

battery charger in standby mode and off 

mode, expressed in watts, shall be 

measured in accordance with sections 

5.11 and 5.12, respectively, of appendix 

Y of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

3. Appendix Y to subpart B of part 

430 is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Battery 

Chargers 

1. Scope 

This appendix covers the test requirements 

used to measure battery charger energy 

consumption for battery chargers operating at 

either DC or United States AC line voltage 

(120V at 60Hz). 

2. Definitions 

The following definitions are for the 

purposes of understanding terminology 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1For clarity on any other terminology used in the 

test method, please refer to IEEE Standard 1515– 

2000. 

associated with the test method for 

measuring battery charger energy 

consumption.1

2.1. Active mode or charge mode is the 

state in which the battery charger system is 

connected to the main electricity supply, and 

the battery charger is delivering current, 

equalizing the cells, and performing other 

one-time or limited-time functions in order to 

bring the battery to a fully charged state. 

2.2. Active power or real power (P) means 

the average power consumed by a unit. For 

a two terminal device with current and 

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

periodic with period T, the real or active 

power P is: 

P = v t i t dt 1

0 T ()()

T

∫

2.3. Ambient temperature is the 

temperature of the ambient air immediately 

surrounding the unit under test. 

2.4. Apparent power (S) is the product of 

root-mean-square (RMS) voltage and RMS 

current in volt-amperes (VA). 

2.5. Batch charger is a battery charger that 

charges two or more identical batteries 

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

batch charger does not have separate voltage 

or current regulation, nor does it have any 

separate indicators for each battery in the 

batch. When testing a batch charger, the term 

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

all the batteries in the batch that are charged 

together. A charger can be both a batch 

charger and a multi-port charger or multivoltage charger. 

2.6. Battery or battery pack is an assembly 

of one or more rechargeable cells and any 

integral protective circuitry intended to 

provide electrical energy to a consumer 

product, and may be in one of the following 

forms: (a) Detachable battery: A battery that 

is contained in a separate enclosure from the 

consumer product and is intended to be 

removed or disconnected from the consumer 

product for recharging; or (b) integral battery: 

A battery that is contained within the 

consumer product and is not removed from 

the consumer product for charging purposes. 

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

specified discharge conditions in the test 

procedure. 

2.8. Battery maintenance mode or 

maintenance mode is the mode of operation 

when the battery charger is connected to the 

main electricity supply and the battery is 

fully charged, but is still connected to the 

charger. 

2.9. Battery rest period is a period of time 

between discharge and charge or between 

charge and discharge, during which the 

battery is resting in an open-circuit state in 

ambient air. 

2.10. C-rate is the rate of charge or 

discharge, calculated by dividing the charge 

or discharge current by the rated charge 

capacity of the battery. 

2.11. Cradle is an electrical interface 

between an integral battery product and the 

rest of the battery charger designed to hold 

the product between uses. 

2.12. Crest factor for an AC or DC voltage 

or current waveform, is the ratio of the peak 

instantaneous value to the root-mean-square 

(RMS) value. 

2.13. Equalization is a process whereby a 

battery is overcharged, beyond what would 

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

cells can be balanced, electrolyte mixed, and 

plate sulfation removed. 

2.14. Instructions or manufacturer’s 

instructions means the documentation 

packaged with a product in printed or 

electronic form and any information about 

the product listed on a Web site maintained 

by the manufacturer and accessible by the 

general public at the time of the test. 

2.15. Measured charge capacity of a battery 

is the product of the discharge current in 

amperes and the time in decimal hours 

required to reach the specified end-ofdischarge voltage. 

2.16. Manual on-off switch is a switch 

activated by the user to control power 

reaching the battery charger. This term does 

not apply to any mechanical, optical, or 

electronic switches that automatically 

disconnect main power from the battery 

charger when a battery is removed from a 

cradle or charging base, or for products with 

non-detachable batteries that control power 

to the product itself. 

2.17. Multi-port charger means a battery 

charger which charges two or more batteries 

(which may be identical or different) 

simultaneously. The batteries are not 

connected in series or in parallel. Rather, 

each port has separate voltage and/or current 

regulation. If the charger has status 

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

A charger can be both a batch charger and a 

multi-port charger if it is capable of charging 

two or more batches of batteries 

simultaneously and each batch has separate 

regulation and/or indicator(s). 

2.18. Multi-voltage charger is a battery 

charger that, by design, can charge a variety 

of batteries (or batches of batteries, if also a 

batch charger) that are of different rated 

battery voltages. A multi-voltage charger can 

also be a multi-port charger if it can charge 

two or more batteries simultaneously with 

independent voltage and/or current 

regulation. 

2.19. Off mode is the condition, applicable 

only to units with manual on-off switches, in 

which the battery charger: 

(1) Is connected to the main electricity 

supply; 

(2) Is not connected to the battery; and 

(3) All manual on-off switches are turned 

off. 

2.20. Power factor is the ratio of the active 

power (P) consumed in watts to the apparent 

power (S), drawn in volt-amperes (VA). 

2.21. Rated battery voltage is specified by 

the manufacturer and typically printed on 

the label of the battery itself. If there are 

multiple batteries that are connected in 

series, the rated battery voltage of the 

batteries is the total voltage of the series 

configuration, that is, the rated voltage of 

each battery multiplied by the number of 

batteries connected in series. Connecting 

multiple batteries in parallel does not affect 

the rated battery voltage. 

2.22. Rated charge capacity is the capacity 

the manufacturer declares the battery can 

store under specified test conditions, usually 

given in ampere-hours (Ah) or milliamperehours (mAh) and typically printed on the 

label of the battery itself. If there are multiple 

batteries that are connected in parallel, the 

rated charge capacity of the batteries is the 

total charge capacity of the parallel 

configuration, that is, the rated charge 

capacity of each battery multiplied by the 

number of batteries connected in parallel. 

Connecting multiple batteries in series does 

not affect the rated charge capacity. 

2.23. Rated energy capacity means the 

product (in watt-hours) of the rated battery 

voltage and the rated charge capacity. 

2.24. Standby mode or no-battery mode 

means the condition in which: 

(1) The battery charger is connected to the 

main electricity supply; 

(2) The battery is not connected to the 

charger; and 

(3) For battery chargers with manual on-off 

switches, all such switches are turned on. 

2.25. Total harmonic distortion (THD), 

expressed as a percent, is the root mean 

square (RMS value of an AC signal after the 

fundamental component is removed and 

interharmonic components are ignored, 

divided by the RMS value of the fundamental 

component. 

2.26. Unit under test (UUT) in this 

appendix refers to the combination of the 

battery charger and battery being tested. 

3. Standard Test Conditions 

3.1. General 

The values that may be measured or 

calculated during the conduct of this test 

procedure have been summarized for easy 

reference in Table 3.1. 

TABLE 3.1—LIST OF MEASURED OR CALCULATED VALUES

Name of measured or calculated value Reference Value 

1 ........................ Time required to reach end-of discharge, (tdischarge_0.5A ) .................................................. Section 4.6. 

2 ........................ Charge Capacity Estimate .................................................................................................. Section 4.6. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02AP10.001</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16981 

TABLE 3.1—LIST OF MEASURED OR CALCULATED VALUES—Continued 

Name of measured or calculated value Reference Value 

3 ........................ Trial 0.2 C discharge current, (I0.2C_trial) ............................................................................ Section 4.6. 

4 ........................ Improved Charge Capacity Estimate (if second discharge lasts for less than 4 or more 

than 5 hours).

Section 4.6. 

5 ........................ Improved 0.2 C discharge current estimate (if second discharge lasts for less than 4 or 

more than 5 hours), (I’0.2C_trial).

Section 4.6. 

6 ........................ Duration of the charge and maintenance mode test ......................................................... Section 5.2. 

7 ........................ Battery Discharge Energy .................................................................................................. Section 4.6. 

8 ........................ Initial time, power (W), power factor, and crest factor of the input current of connected 

battery.

Section 5.8. 

9 ........................ Power factor and crest factor of the input current during last 10 min of test .................... Section 5.8. 

10 ...................... Active and Maintenance Mode Energy Consumption ........................................................ Section 5.8. 

11 ...................... Maintenance Mode Power .................................................................................................. Section 5.9. 

12 ...................... 24 Hour Energy Consumption ............................................................................................ Section 5.10. 

12 ...................... Standby Mode Power ......................................................................................................... Section 5.11. 

13 ...................... Off Mode Power ................................................................................................................. Section 5.12. 

3.2. Verifying Accuracy and Precision of 

Measuring Equipment 

a. Measurements of active power of 0.5 W 

or greater shall be made with an uncertainty 

of ≤ 2% at the 95% confidence level. 

Measurements of active power of less than 

0.5 W shall be made with an uncertainty of 

≤ 0.01 W at the 95% confidence level. The 

power measurement instrument shall. As 

applicable, have a resolution of: 

(1) 0.01 W or better for measurements up 

to 10 W; 

(2) 0.1 W or better for measurements of 10 

to 100 W; or 

(3) 1 W or better for measurements over 

100 W. 

b. Measurements of energy (Wh) shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 2% at the 95% 

confidence level. Measurements of voltage 

and current shall be made with an 

uncertainty of ≤ 1% at the 95% confidence 

level. Measurements of temperature shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 2 °C at the 

95% confidence level. 

c. All equipment used to conduct the tests 

must be selected and calibrated to ensure that 

measurements will meet the above 

uncertainty requirements. For suggestions on 

measuring low power levels, see IEC 62301, 

(Reference for guidance only, see § 430.4) 

especially Section 5.3.2 and Annexes B and 

D. 

3.3. Setting Up the Test Room 

All tests, battery conditioning, and battery 

rest periods shall be carried out in a room 

with an air speed immediately surrounding 

the UUT of ≤ 0.5 m/s. The ambient 

temperature shall be maintained at 25 °C ± 

5 °C throughout the test. There shall be no 

intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use 

of separately powered fans, air conditioners, 

or heat sinks. The UUT shall be conditioned, 

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

material such as Styrofoam will be sufficient. 

When not undergoing active testing, batteries 

shall be stored at 25 °C ± 5 °C. 

3.4. Verifying the UUT’s Input Voltage and 

Input Frequency 

a. If the UUT is intended for operation on 

AC line-voltage input in the United States, it 

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

is intended for operation on AC line-voltage 

input but cannot be operated at 115 V at 60 

Hz, it shall not be tested. 

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

DC or AC input, and the manufacturer 

packages the charger with a wall adapter, 

sells, or recommends an optional wall 

adapter capable of providing that low voltage 

input, then the charger shall be tested using 

that wall adapter and the input reference 

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

adapter cannot be operated with AC input 

voltage at 115 V at 60 Hz, the charger shall 

not be tested. 

c. If the UUT is intended for operation only 

on DC input voltage and does not include a 

wall adapter, it shall be tested with one of 

the following input voltages: 12.0 V DC for 

products intended for automotive, 

recreational vehicle, or marine use, 5.0 V DC 

for products drawing power from a computer 

USB port, or the midpoint of the rated input 

voltage range for all other products. The 

input voltage shall be within ± 1% of the 

above specified voltage. 

d. If the input voltage is AC, the input 

frequency shall be within ± 1% of the 

specified frequency. The THD of the input 

voltage shall be ≤ 2%, up to and including 

the 13th harmonic. The crest factor of the 

input voltage shall be between 1.34 and 1.49. 

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

voltage (RMS) shall be: 

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

(2) ≤ 2% of the DC voltage for DC voltages 

over 10 V. 

4. Unit Under Test Setup Requirements 

4.1. General Setup 

a. The battery charger system shall be 

prepared and set up in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions, except where 

those instructions conflict with the 

requirements of this test procedure. If no 

instructions are given, then factory or 

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

there are no indications of such settings, the 

UUT shall be tested as supplied. 

b. If the battery charger has user controls 

to select from two or more charge rates (such 

as regular or fast charge) or different charge 

currents, the test shall be conducted at the 

fastest charge rate that is recommended by 

the manufacturer for everyday use, or failing 

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

controls for selecting special charge cycles 

that are recommended only for occasional 

use to preserve battery health, such as 

equalization charge, removing memory, or 

battery conditioning, these modes are not 

required to be tested. The settings of the 

controls shall be listed in the report for each 

test. 

4.2. Selection and Treatment of the Battery 

Charger 

The UUT, including the battery charger 

and its associated battery, shall be new 

products of the type and condition that 

would be sold to a customer. If the battery 

is lead-acid chemistry and the battery is to 

be stored for more than 24-hours between its 

initial acquisition and testing, the battery 

shall be charged before such storage. 

4.3. Selection of Batteries To Use for Testing 

a. For chargers with integral batteries, the 

battery packaged with the charger shall be 

used for testing. For chargers with detachable 

batteries, the battery or batteries to be used 

for testing will vary depending on whether 

there are any batteries packaged with the 

battery charger. 

(1) If batteries are packaged with the 

charger, batteries for testing shall be selected 

from the batteries packaged with the battery 

charger, according to the procedure below. 

(2) If no batteries are packaged with the 

charger, but the instructions specify or 

recommend batteries for use with the 

charger, batteries for testing shall be selected 

from those recommended or specified in the 

instructions, according to the procedure 

below. 

(3) If no batteries are packaged with the 

charger and the instructions do not specify or 

recommend batteries for use with the 

charger, batteries for testing shall be selected 

from any that are suitable for use with the 

charger, according to the procedure below. 

b. From the detachable batteries specified 

above, the technician shall use Table 4.1 to 

select the batteries to be used for testing 

depending on the type of charger being 

tested. Each row in the table represents a 

mutually exclusive charger type. The 

technician shall find the single applicable 

row for the UUT, and test according to those 

requirements. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

16982 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

c. A charger is considered as: 

(1) Single-capacity if all associated 

batteries have the same rated charge capacity 

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

all configurations of the batteries have the 

same rated charge capacity. 

(2) Multi-capacity if there are associated 

batteries or configurations of batteries that 

have different rated charge capacities. 

d. The selected battery or batteries will be 

referred to as the test battery and will be used 

through the remainder of this test procedure. 

TABLE 4.1—BATTERY SELECTION FOR TESTING

Type of charger Tests to perform 

Multi-voltage Multi-port Multi-capacity Number 

of tests 

Battery selection (from all configurations of all associated 

batteries) 

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

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

Highest charge capacity battery. 

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

lowest rated charge capacity that the charger can charge. 

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

highest rated charge capacity the charger can accommodate. 

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

Highest voltage battery. 

Yes .................... Yes to either or 

both.

........................... 3 Of the batteries with the lowest voltage, use the one with the lowest 

charge capacity. Use only one port. 

Of the batteries with the highest voltage, use the one with the lowest 

charge capacity. Use only one port. 

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

the highest total calculated energy capacity. 

4.4. Limiting Other Non-Battery-Charger 

Functions 

a. If the battery charger or product 

containing the battery charger does not have 

any additional functions unrelated to battery 

charging, this subsection may be skipped. 

b. Any optional functions controlled by the 

user and not associated with the battery 

charging process (e.g., the answering 

machine in a cordless telephone charging 

base) shall be switched off. If it is not 

possible to switch such functions off, they 

shall be set to their lowest power-consuming 

mode during the test. 

c. If the battery charger takes any 

physically separate connectors or cables not 

required for battery charging but associated 

with its other functionality (such as phone 

lines, serial or USB connections, Ethernet, 

cable TV lines, etc.), these connectors or 

cables shall be left disconnected during the 

testing. 

d. Any manual on-off switches specifically 

associated with the battery charging process 

shall be switched on for the duration of the 

charge, maintenance, and no-battery mode 

tests, and switched off for the off mode test. 

4.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test 

a. The technician may need to disassemble 

the end-use product or battery charger to gain 

access to the battery terminals for the Battery 

Discharge Energy Test in section 5.6. If the 

battery terminals are not clearly labeled, the 

technician shall use a voltmeter to identify 

the positive and negative terminals. These 

terminals will be the ones that give the 

largest voltage difference and are able to 

deliver significant current (0.2 C) into a load. 

b. All conductors used for contacting the 

battery must be cleaned and burnished prior 

to connecting in order to decrease voltage 

drops and achieve consistent results. 

c. Manufacturer’s instructions for 

disassembly shall be followed, except those 

instructions that: 

(1) Lead to any permanent alteration of the 

battery charger circuitry or function; 

(2) Could alter the energy consumption of 

the battery charger compared to that 

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

due to changes in the airflow through the 

enclosure of the UUT; or 

(3) Contradict requirements of this test 

procedure. 

d. Care shall be taken by the technician 

during disassembly to follow appropriate 

safety precautions. If the functionality of the 

device or its safety features is compromised, 

the product shall be discarded after testing. 

e. Some products may include protective 

circuitry between the battery cells and the 

remainder of the device. In some cases, it is 

possible that the test battery cannot be 

discharged without activating protective 

control circuitry. If the manufacturer 

provides a description for accessing 

connections at the output of the protective 

circuitry, the energy measurements shall be 

made at the terminals of the test battery, so 

as not to include energy used by the 

protective control circuitry. 

f. If the technician, despite diligent effort 

and use of the manufacturer’s instructions: 

(1) Is unable to access the battery 

terminals; 

(2) Determines that access to the battery 

terminals destroys charger functionality; or 

(3) Is unable to draw current from the test 

battery, then the Battery Discharge Energy 

and the Charging and Maintenance Mode 

Energy shall be reported as ‘‘Not Applicable.’’ 

4.6. Determining Charge Capacity for 

Batteries With No Rating 

a. If the test battery has a rated charge 

capacity, this subsection may be skipped. 

Otherwise, if there is no rating for the battery 

charge capacity on the test battery or in the 

instructions, then the technician shall 

estimate the battery capacity in accordance 

with the following iterative procedure 

involving two or three charge and logged 

discharge cycles. These cycles can be used in 

lieu of the battery conditioning specified in 

section 5.3: 

(1) The test battery shall be fully charged 

according to the procedure in section 5.2. 

(2) The test battery shall then be 

discharged at a rate of 0.5 amperes until its 

average cell voltage under load reaches the 

end-of-discharge voltage specified in Table 

5.2 for the relevant battery chemistry. The 

time required to reach end-of-discharge shall 

be measured, and the capacity estimated by 

multiplying the 0.5 ampere discharge current 

by the discharge time. 

(3) The test battery shall again be fully 

charged, as in step a.(1), of this section. 

(4) The test battery shall then be 

discharged at a trial 0.2 C rate based on the 

above capacity estimate. The trial 0.2 C 

discharge current can be calculated as 

follows: 

I

t

C TRIAL

DISCHARGE

0 2

0 5 0 5

. _

_ . . = A× A

5 h


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02AP10.002</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16983 

Where: 

I0.2C_TRIAL = is the trial discharge current; and 

tDISCHARGE_0.5A is the time required to 

discharge the battery at 0.5 amperes. 

(5) The time required to reach end-ofdischarge shall again be measured. If this 

second discharge time is greater than 4.5 

hours and less than 5.5 hours, the capacity 

determined using the above method shall be 

used as the rated charge capacity throughout 

the remainder of this test procedure. 

Furthermore, the current calculated above 

shall be used as the 0.2 C rate. 

(6) Otherwise, if the second discharge time 

measured in step a.(4), of this section, is 

greater than 4.5 hours and less than 5.5 

hours, the capacity estimate shall be updated 

by multiplying by the second discharge time, 

and an updated trial discharge current shall 

be calculated as follows: 

′ = × ′ I

I t

C TRIAL

C TRIAL DISCHARGE

0 2

02 05

. _

. _ _. A

5 h

Where: 

I0.2C_TRIAL is the original trial discharge 

current; 

I′0.2C_TRIAL is the updated trial discharge 

current; 

t′DISCHARGE_0.5A is the updated discharge 

time measured at the I0.2C_TRIAL rate. 

b. This updated capacity estimate and 

updated trial discharge current shall then be 

used throughout this test procedure as the 

rated battery capacity and the 0.2 C rate, 

respectively. 

5. Test Measurement 

The test sequence to measure the battery 

charger energy consumption is summarized 

in Table 5.1, and explained in detail below. 

Measurements shall be made under test 

conditions and with the equipment specified 

in Sections 3 and 4. 

TABLE 5.1—TEST SEQUENCE

Step Description Data 

taken? 

Equipment needed 

Test 

battery Charger 

Battery 

analyzer or 

constantcurrent 

load 

AC 

power 

meter 

Thermometer 

(for flooded 

lead-acid 

BCs only) 

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

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

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

4 ............... Prepare battery for .......................................

discharge test; Section 5.4 ..........................

No ............ X X .................... .................... ....................

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

6 ............... Battery Discharge Energy Test; Section 5.6 Yes .......... X .................... X .................... ....................

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

8 ............... Conduct Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode Test; Section 5.8.Yes .......... X X .................... X ....................

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

Section 5.9.

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

10 ............. Calculating the 24–Hour Energy Consumption; Section 5.10.No ............ .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

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

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

5.1. Recording General Data on the UUT 

The technician shall record: 

(1) The manufacturer and model of the 

battery charger; 

(2) The presence and status of any 

additional functions unrelated to battery 

charging; 

(3) The manufacturer, model, and number 

of batteries in the test battery; 

(4) The rated battery voltage of the test 

battery; 

(5) The rated charge capacity of the test 

battery; and 

(6) The rated charge energy of the test 

battery. 

(7) The settings of the controls, if battery 

charger has user controls to select from two 

or more charge rates. 

5.2. Determining the Duration of the Charge 

and Maintenance Mode Test 

a. The charging and maintenance mode 

test, section 5.8, shall be 24 hours or longer, 

as determined by the items below, in order 

of preference: 

(1) If the battery charger has an indicator 

to show that the battery is fully charged, that 

indicator shall be used as follows: If the 

indicator shows that the battery is charged 

after 19 hours of charging, the test shall be 

terminated at 24 hours. Conversely, if the 

full-charge indication is not yet present after 

19 hours of charging, the test shall continue 

until 5 hours after the indication is present. 

(2) If there is no indicator, but the 

manufacturer’s instructions indicate that 

charging this battery or this capacity of 

battery should be complete within 19 hours, 

the test shall be for 24 hours. If the 

instructions indicate that charging may take 

longer than 19 hours, the test shall be run for 

the longest estimated charge time plus 5 

hours. 

(3) If there is no indicator and no time 

estimate in the instructions, but the charging 

current is stated on the charger or in the 

instructions, calculate the test duration as the 

longer of 24 hours or: 

Duration

ChargeCurrent

=⋅ + 14 5 . RatedChargeCapacity (Ah)

 (A)

h


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02AP10.003</MATH> EP02AP10.004</MATH>
16984 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

b. If none of the above applies, the duration 

of the test shall be 24 hours. 

5.4. Preparing the Battery for Discharge 

Testing 

Following any conditioning prior to 

beginning the battery discharge test (section 

5.6), the test battery shall be fully charged for 

the duration specified in section 5.2 or no 

longer using the UUT. 

5.5. Resting the Battery 

The test battery shall be rested between 

preparation and the battery discharge test. 

The rest period shall be at least one hour and 

not exceed 24 hours. For batteries with 

flooded cells, the electrolyte temperature 

shall be less than 33 °C before charging, even 

if the rest period must be extended longer 

than 24 hours. 

5.6. Battery Discharge Energy Test 

a. If multiple batteries were charged 

simultaneously during the preparation step, 

the discharge energy is the sum of the 

discharge energies of all the batteries. 

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

were charged in separate ports shall be 

discharged independently. 

(2) For a batch charger: batteries that were 

charged as a group may be discharged 

individually, as a group, or in sub-groups 

connected in series and/or parallel. The 

position of each battery with respect to the 

other batteries need not be maintained. 

b. During discharge, the battery voltage and 

discharge current shall be sampled and 

recorded at least once per minute. The values 

recorded may be average or instantaneous 

values. 

c. For this test, the technician shall follow 

these steps: 

(1) Ensure that the test battery has been 

charged by the UUT and rested according to 

the procedures above. 

(2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant 

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

battery chemistry. 

(3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer 

and begin recording the voltage, current, and 

wattage, if available from the battery 

analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage 

is reached or the UUT circuitry terminates 

the discharge, the test battery shall be 

returned to an open-circuit condition. If for 

any reason, current continues to be drawn 

from the test battery after the end-ofdischarge condition is first reached, this 

additional energy is not to be counted in the 

battery discharge energy. 

d. If not available from the battery 

analyzer, the battery discharge energy (in 

watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the 

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

sample period (in hours) for each sample, 

and then summing over all sample periods 

until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached. 

5.7. Resting the Battery 

The test battery shall be rested between 

discharging and charging. The rest period 

shall be at least one hour and not more than 

24-hours. For batteries with flooded cells, the 

electrolyte temperature shall be less than 33 

°C before charging, even if the rest period 

must be extended longer than 4 hours. 

5.8. Testing Charge Mode and Battery 

Maintenance Mode 

a. The Charge and Battery Maintenance 

Mode test measures the energy consumed 

during charge mode and some time spent in 

the maintenance mode of the UUT. Functions 

required for battery conditioning that happen 

only with some user-selected switch or other 

control shall not be included in this 

measurement. (The technician shall 

manually turn off any battery conditioning 

cycle or setting.) Regularly occurring battery 

conditioning or maintenance functions that 

are not controlled by the user will, by 

default, be incorporated into this 

measurement. 

b. During the measurement period, input 

power values to the UUT shall be recorded 

at least once every minute. 

(1) If possible, the technician shall set the 

data logging system to record the average 

power during the sample interval. This 

allows the total energy to be computed as the 

sum of power samples (in watts) multiplied 

by the sample interval (in hours). 

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

power analyzer shall be set to integrate or 

accumulate the input power over the 

measurement period and this result shall be 

used as the total energy. 

c. The technician shall follow these steps: 

(1) Ensure that user-controllable device 

functionality not associated with battery 

charging and any battery conditioning cycle 

or setting are turned off, as instructed in 

section 4.4; 

(2) Ensure that the test battery used in this 

test has been conditioned, prepared, 

discharged, and rested as described in 

sections 5.3 through 5.7, above; 

(3) Connect the data logging equipment to 

the battery charger; 

(4) Record the start time of the 

measurement period, and begin logging the 

input power; 

(5) Connect the test battery to the battery 

charger within 3 minutes of beginning 

logging. For integral battery products, 

connect the product to a cradle or wall 

adapter within 3 minutes of beginning 

logging; 

(6) After the test battery is connected, 

record the initial time, power (W), power 

factor, and crest factor of the input current 

to the UUT. These measurements shall be 

taken within the first 10 minutes of active 

charging; 

(7) Record the input power for the duration 

of the ‘‘Charging and Maintenance Mode 

Test’’ period, as determined by 5.2. The 

actual time that power is connected to the 

UUT shall be within ±5 minutes of the 

specified period; 

(8) During the last 10 minutes of the test, 

record the power factor and crest factor of the 

input current to the UUT; and 

(9) Disconnect power to the UUT, 

terminate data logging, and record the final 

time. 

5.9. Determining the Maintenance Mode 

Power 

a. After the measurement period is 

complete, the technician shall determine the 

average maintenance mode power 

consumption as follows. Examine the powerversus-time data, and: 

(1) If the maintenance mode power is 

cyclic or shows periodic pulses, compute the 

average power over a time period that spans 

an integer number of cycles and includes at 

least the last 4 hours. 

(2) Otherwise, calculate the average power 

value over the last 4 hours. 

5.10. Determining the 24–Hour Energy 

Consumption 

a. If the charge and maintenance test 

period determined in section 5.2 was 24- 

hours, either the accumulated energy or the 

average input power, integrated over the test 

period, shall be used to calculate 24-hour 

energy consumption. 

b. If the charge and maintenance test 

period was greater than 24-hours, only the 

first 24-hours of the accumulated energy or 

the average input power, integrated over 

24-hours, shall be used to calculate the 24- 

hour energy consumption. 

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

Battery chemistry Discharge rate 

C 

End-of-discharge 

voltage 

Volts per cell 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 16985 

5.11. Standby Mode Energy Consumption 

Measurement 

a. Conduct a measurement of standby 

power consumption while the battery charger 

is connected to the power source. Disconnect 

the battery from the charger, allow the 

charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and 

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

the time series integral of the power 

consumed over a 10 minute test period, 

divided by the period of measurement. If the 

battery charger has manual on-off switches, 

all must be turned on for the duration of the 

standby mode test. 

b. Standby mode may also apply to 

products with integral batteries. If the 

product uses a cradle and/or adapter for 

power conversion and charging, then 

‘‘disconnecting the battery from the charger’’ 

will require disconnection of the end-use 

product, which contains the batteries. The 

other enclosures of the battery charging 

system will remain connected to the main 

electricity supply, and standby mode power 

consumption will equal that of the cradle 

and/or adapter alone. 

c. If the product also contains integrated 

power conversion and charging circuitry and 

is powered through a detachable AC power 

cord, then only the cord will remain 

connected to mains, and standby mode 

power consumption will equal that of the AC 

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

d. Finally, if the product contains 

integrated power conversion and charging 

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

then no part of the system will remain 

connected to mains, and standby mode 

measurement is not applicable. 

5.12 Off Mode Energy Consumption 

Measurement 

a. If the battery charger has manual on-off 

switches, record a measurement of off mode 

energy consumption while the battery 

charger is connected to the power source. 

Remove the battery from the charger, allow 

the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, 

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

as the time series integral of the power 

consumed over a 10-minute test period, 

divided by the period of measurement, with 

all manual on-off switches turned off. If the 

battery charger does not have manual on-off 

switches, record that the off mode 

measurement is not applicable to this 

product. 

b. Off mode may also apply to products 

with integral batteries. If the product uses a 

cradle and/or adapter for power conversion 

and charging, then ‘‘disconnecting the battery 

from the charger’’ will require disconnection 

of the end-use product, which contains the 

batteries. The other enclosures of the battery 

charging system will remain connected to the 

main electricity supply, and off mode power 

consumption will equal that of the cradle 

and/or adapter alone. 

c. If the product also contains integrated 

power conversion and charging circuitry and 

is powered through a detachable AC power 

cord, then only the cord will remain 

connected to mains, and off mode power 

consumption will equal that of the AC power 

cord (i.e., zero watts). 

d. Finally, if the product contains 

integrated power conversion and charging 

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

then no part of the system will remain 

connected to mains, and off mode 

measurement is not applicable. 

4. Amend appendix Z to subpart B of 

part 430 by: 

a. Revising paragraph 2(c). 

b. Revising paragraphs 3(b) and 4(b). 

The revisions read as follows: 

Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of External Power 

Supplies 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

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

the average power consumed by a unit. For 

a two terminal device with current and 

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

periodic with period T, the real or active 

power P is: 

P = v t i t dt 1

0 T ()()

T

∫

* * * * * 

3. * * * 

(b) Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply. Unless otherwise specified, 

measurements shall be made under test 

conditions and with equipment specified 

below. 

(i) Verifying Accuracy and Precision of 

Measuring Equipment 

(A) Measurements of power 0.5 W or 

greater shall be made with an uncertainty of 

≤ 2% at the 95% confidence level. 

Measurements of power less than 0.5 W shall 

be made with an uncertainty of ≤ 0.01 W at 

the 95% confidence level. The power 

measurement instrument shall have a 

resolution of: 

(1) 0.01 W or better for measurements up 

to 10 W; 

(2) 0.1 W or better for measurements of 10 

to 100 W; or 

(3) 1 W or better for measurements over 

100 W. 

(B) Measurements of energy (Wh) shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 2% at the 95% 

confidence level. Measurements of voltage 

and current shall be made with an 

uncertainty of ≤ 1% at the 95% confidence 

level. Measurements of temperature shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 2 °C at the 

95% confidence level. 

(C) All equipment used to conduct the tests 

must be selected and calibrated to ensure that 

measurements will meet the above 

uncertainty requirements. For suggestions on 

measuring low power levels, see IEC 62301, 

(Reference for guidance only, see § 430.4) 

especially Section 5.3.2 and Annexes B and 

D. 

(ii) Setting Up the Test Room 

All tests shall be carried out in a room with 

an air speed immediately surrounding the 

UUT of ≤ 0.5 m/s. The ambient temperature 

shall be maintained at 25 °C ± 5 °C 

throughout the test. There shall be no 

intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use 

of separately powered fans, air conditioners, 

or heat sinks. The UUT shall be conditioned, 

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

material such as Styrofoam will be sufficient. 

(iii) Verifying the UUT’s Input Voltage and 

Input Frequency 

(A) If the UUT is intended for operation on 

AC line-voltage input in the United States, it 

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

is intended for operation on AC line-voltage 

input but cannot be operated at 115 V at 60 

Hz, it shall not be tested. The input voltage 

shall be within ± 1% of the above specified 

voltage. 

(B) If the UUT is intended for operation 

only on DC input voltage, it shall be tested 

with one of the following input voltages: 12.0 

V DC for products intended for automotive, 

recreational vehicle, or marine use; 5.0 V DC 

for products drawing power from a computer 

USB port; or the midpoint of the rated input 

voltage range for all other products. The 

input voltage shall be within ± 1% of the 

above specified voltage. 

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

frequency shall be within ± 1% of the 

specified frequency. The THD of the input 

voltage shall be ≤ 2%, up to and including 

the 13th harmonic. The crest factor of the 

input voltage shall be between 1.34 and 1.49. 

(D) If the input voltage is DC, the AC ripple 

voltage (RMS) shall be: 

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

(2) ≤ 2% of the DC voltage for DC voltages 

over 10 V. 

4. * * * 

(b) Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply—Power supplies must be tested with 

the output cord packaged with the unit for 

sale to the consumer, as it is considered part 

of the unit under test. There are two options 

for connecting metering equipment to the 

output of this type of power supply: Cut the 

cord immediately adjacent to the output 

connector or attach leads and measure the 

efficiency from the output connector itself. If 

the power supply is attached directly to the 

product that it is powering, cut the cord 

immediately adjacent to the powered product 

and connect output measurement probes at 

that point. The tests should be conducted on 

the sets of output wires that constitute the 

output busses. If the product has additional 

wires, these should be left electrically 

disconnected unless they are necessary for 

controlling the product. In this case, the 

manufacturer shall supply a connection 

diagram or test fixture that will allow the 

testing laboratory to put the unit under test 

into active mode. 

(i) Standby-Mode and Active-Mode 

Measurement—The measurement of the 

multiple-voltage external power supply 

standby mode (also no-load-mode) energy 

consumption and active-mode efficiency 

shall be as follows: 

(A) Loading conditions and testing 

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

the ‘‘on’’ position. Loading criteria for 

multiple-voltage external power supplies 

shall be based on nameplate output current 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02AP10.005</MATH>
16986 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and not on nameplate output power because 

output voltage might not remain constant. 

(2) The unit under test shall operate at 100 

percent of nameplate current output for at 

least 30 minutes immediately before 

conducting efficiency measurements. 

(3) After this warm-up period, the 

technician shall monitor AC input power for 

a period of 5 minutes to assess the stability 

of the unit under test. If the power level does 

not drift by more than 1 percent from the 

maximum value observed, the unit under test 

can be considered stable and measurements 

can be recorded at the end of the 5-minute 

period. Measurements at subsequent loading 

conditions, listed in Table 1, can then be 

conducted under the same 5-minute stability 

guidelines. Only one warm-up period of 30 

minutes is required for each unit under test 

at the beginning of the test procedure. 

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

5-minute period, the technician shall follow 

the guidelines established by IEC Standard 

62301 for measuring average power or 

accumulated energy over time for both input 

and output. 

(5) The unit under test shall be tested at 

the loading conditions listed in Table 1, 

derated per the proportional allocation 

method presented in the following section. 

TABLE 1—LOADING CONDITIONS FOR UNIT UNDER TEST

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

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

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

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

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

(6) Input and output power measurements 

shall be conducted in sequence from Loading 

Condition 1 to Loading Condition 4, as 

indicated in Table 1. For Loading Condition 

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

to the unit under test shall be disconnected, 

and input power shall be measured. 

(B) Proportional allocation method for 

loading multiple-voltage external power 

supplies. For power supplies with multiple 

voltage busses, defining consistent loading 

criteria is difficult because each bus has its 

own nameplate output current. The sum of 

the power dissipated by each bus loaded to 

its nameplate output current may exceed the 

overall nameplate output power of the power 

supply. The following proportional 

allocation method must be used to provide 

consistent loading conditions for multiplevoltage external power supplies. For 

additional explanation, please refer to section 

6.1.1 of the California Energy Commission’s 

‘‘Proposed Test Protocol for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power 

Supplies Revision 6.2,’’ November 2007. 

(1) Assume a multiple-voltage power 

supply with N output busses, and nameplate 

output voltages V1, * * *, VN, corresponding 

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

nameplate output power P. Calculate the 

derating factor D by dividing the power 

supply nameplate output power P by the sum 

of the nameplate output powers of the 

individual output busses, equal to the 

product of bus nameplate output voltage and 

current IiVi, as follows: 

D P

V Ii i

i

N =

=

∑

1

,

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

nameplate output current does not exceed 

the overall nameplate output power for the 

power supply. In this case, each output bus 

will simply be loaded to the percentages of 

its nameplate output current listed in Table 

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

loading each bus to its nameplate output 

current will exceed the overall nameplate 

output power for the power supply. In this 

case, and at each loading condition, each 

output bus will be loaded to the appropriate 

percentage of its nameplate output current 

listed in Table 1, multiplied by the derating 

factor D. 

(C) Minimum output current requirements. 

Depending on their application, some 

multiple-voltage power supplies may require 

a minimum output current for each output 

bus of the power supply for correct 

operation. In these cases, ensure that the load 

current for each output at Loading Condition 

4 in Table 1 is greater than the minimum 

output current requirement. Thus, if the test 

method’s calculated load current for a given 

voltage bus is smaller than the minimum 

output current requirement, the minimum 

output current must be used to load the bus. 

This load current shall be properly recorded 

in any test report. 

(D) Test loads. Active loads such as 

electronic loads or passive loads such as 

rheostats used for efficiency testing of the 

unit under test shall be able to maintain the 

required current loading set point for each 

output voltage within an accuracy of ± 0.5 

percent. If electronic load banks are used, 

their settings should be adjusted such that 

they provide a constant current load to the 

unit under test. 

(E) Efficiency calculation. Efficiency shall 

be calculated by dividing the measured 

active output power of the unit under test at 

a given loading condition by the active AC 

input power measured at that loading 

condition. Efficiency shall be calculated at 

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

Table 1) and be recorded separately. 

(F) Power consumption calculation. Power 

consumption of the unit under test at 

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

difference between the active output power 

at that Loading Condition and the active AC 

input power at that Loading Condition. The 

power consumption of Loading Condition 5 

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

power at that Loading Condition. 

(ii) Off Mode Measurement—If the 

multiple-voltage external power supply unit 

under test incorporates any on-off switches, 

the unit under test shall be placed in off 

mode and its power consumption in off mode 

measured and recorded. The measurement of 

the off mode energy consumption shall 

conform to the requirements specified in 

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

the only loading condition that will be 

measured for off mode is ‘‘Loading Condition 

5’’ in paragraph 4.(b)(i)(A) of this appendix, 

except that all manual on-off switches shall 

be placed in the off position for the 

measurement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6318 Filed 4–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02AP10.006</MATH>