```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31750-31783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12595]

[[Page 31749]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 105

June 1, 2011

Part III

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for Certain Consumer Appliances: Test 
Procedures for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies; Final Rule

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

[[Page 31750]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0019]
RIN 1904-AC03

Energy Conservation Program for Certain Consumer Appliances: Test 
Procedures for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its test 
procedures for battery chargers and external power supplies. In 
particular, DOE is inserting a new active mode energy consumption test 
procedure for battery chargers, which is necessary to develop energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers as mandated by the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). DOE is also amending 
portions of its existing standby and off mode battery charger test 
procedure by decreasing the required testing time. Further, DOE is 
amending its active mode single-voltage external power supply test 
procedure to permit the testing of certain types of external power 
supplies. Finally, DOE is inserting a new procedure to address 
multiple-voltage external power supplies, which are not covered under 
the current single-voltage external power supply test procedure.

DATES: This rule is effective July 1, 2011. After November 28, 2011, 
manufacturers may not make any representation regarding battery charger 
or external power supply energy consumption or efficiency unless such 
battery charger or external power supply has been tested in accordance 
with the final rule provisions in appendix Y (for battery chargers) and 
appendix Z (for external power supplies).

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of all materials related to this 
rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the 
Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 
Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at the above telephone number for additional information regarding 
visiting the Resource Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. E-mail: 
Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov.
    For legal issues, contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: 
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. Battery Charger Active Mode Test Procedure
    B. Review of Battery Charger and External Power Supply Standby 
Mode and Off Mode Test Procedures
    C. Review of Single-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure
    D. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure
III. Discussion
    A. Effective Date for the Amended Test Procedures
    B. Battery Charger Active Mode Test Procedure
    1. Incorporation of the CEC Test Procedure
    2. Scope
    a. Battery Chargers versus External Power Supplies
    b. Input Voltage and Frequency
    c. DC Input Battery Chargers
    d. High-Power Battery Chargers
    e. Consumer Motive Equipment
    3. Definitions
    a. Deleting Existing Definitions
    b. Revising Existing Definitions
    c. Adding New Definitions
    4. Test Apparatus and General Instructions
    a. Confidence Intervals
    b. Test Laboratory Temperature
    c. Charge Rate Selection
    d. Battery Selection
    e. Non-Battery Charging Functions
    f. Battery Chargers With Protective Circuitry
    g. Charge Capacity of Batteries With No Rating
    h. Battery Conditioning
    i. Rest Period
    5. Test Measurement
    a. Removing Inactive Mode Energy Consumption Test Apparatus and 
Measurement
    b. Charge Test Duration
    c. Testing Order
    d. End-of-Discharge Voltages
    e. E 24 Measurement
    C. Review of Battery Charger and External Power Supply Standby 
and Off Mode Test Procedures
    1. Battery Charger Test Procedure Off Mode Definition
    2. Test Duration
    D. Review of the Single-Voltage External Power Supply Test 
Procedure
    1. External Power Supplies That Communicate With Their Loads
    2. External Power Supplies With Output Current Limiting
    3. High-Power External Power Supplies
    4. Active Power
    E. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure
    F. Test Procedure Amendments Not Incorporated in This Final Rule
    1. Incorporating Usage Profiles
    2. Measuring Charger Output Energy
    3. Alternative Depth-of-Discharge Measurement
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 
6291, et seq. (EPCA or the Act), sets forth a variety of provisions 
designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6309) establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles,'' which covers consumer products and 
certain commercial products (all of which are referred to below as 
``covered products''), including battery chargers and external power 
supplies.
    Under EPCA, the overall energy conservation program for consumer 
products and commercial equipment consists essentially of the following 
parts: testing, labeling, and Federal energy conservation standards. 
The testing requirements consist of procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use to certify to the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) that their products comply with the required energy conservation 
standards and to rate the efficiency of their products. These test 
procedures would also be used during enforcement-related testing when 
determining whether a given product complies with the relevant 
standards.
    Today's final rule provides, among other things, a new active mode 
energy consumption test procedure for battery chargers, which is 
necessary to develop energy conservation standards for battery chargers 
as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 
2007). Today's rule also

[[Page 31751]]

modifies the existing procedure found in appendix Y to 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B. In particular, the test procedure that DOE is adopting today 
provides a uniform method to test the energy efficiency of a battery 
charger, which is a necessary prerequisite to the setting of any energy 
conservation standard for these products. Consequently, DOE is 
promulgating today's rule in anticipation of the final rule that will 
set standards for battery chargers.
    Additionally, today's rule introduces other changes to the 
procedures found in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix Z, which covers the 
energy efficiency testing of an external power supply. In particular, 
the rule amends aspects of the current procedure when measuring the 
energy consumption of a Class A external power supply. A Class A 
external power supply is one that is: designed to convert line voltage 
AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output; able to convert to only 1 
AC or DC output voltage at a time; sold with, or intended to be used 
with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load; 
contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product; is 
connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/
female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; and has 
nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts. See 42 
U.S.C. 6291(36)(C). Today's rule also adds a procedure to facilitate 
testing of a multiple-voltage external power supply. The test procedure 
requires loading the multiple-voltage external power supply at five 
separate loading levels and requires that these five outputs be 
reported individually.
    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of such test procedures. See generally 42 
U.S.C. 6293. As part of these requirements, the procedures must be 
reasonably designed to measure the energy use, energy efficiency, or 
annual operating cost during a period that is representative of typical 
use and not be ``unduly burdensome.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In 
addition, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) and Executive Order 
12899, 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993), if DOE determines that a test 
procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test 
procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and 
written comments on them, with a comment period of not less than 75 
days. Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must 
determine ``to what extent the proposed test procedure would alter the 
measured energy efficiency as determined under the existing test 
procedure.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended 
test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered 
product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard 
accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE discusses its consideration of 
the amendments to the test procedures for battery chargers and external 
power supplies in the section that follows.
    DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on April 2, 
2010 (75 FR 16958) in which it discussed in more detail many of the 
testing issues brought forward in the framework document and an 
accompanying public meeting to discuss the approach that DOE planned to 
use in setting energy conservation standards for battery chargers and 
external power supplies. See 74 FR 26816 (June 4, 2009) (discussing the 
framework document for battery chargers and external power 
supplies).\1\ (The public meeting discussing the framework document was 
held on July 16, 2009. That meeting also included discussions related 
to test procedure issues. A related meeting to discuss the preliminary 
analysis DOE performed in examining standards for these products also 
generated some discussion related to test procedure issues.) DOE held a 
public meeting to discuss its test procedure NOPR on May 7, 2010, where 
it also received comments on the proposals set forth in the NOPR 
(hereafter referred to as the NOPR public meeting). A 75-day comment 
period as prescribed by EPCA was afforded to interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Energy--Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers and 
External Power Supplies. May 2009. Washington, DC. Available at: 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_frameworkdocument.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Battery chargers and external power supplies operate similarly in 
that they both take electricity from a power source, usually from a 
wall outlet, and convert it into a form that can be used either to 
power an application directly or to charge and maintain the energy in a 
battery. Specifically, they both take power at one voltage and current 
type, typically 120 volts alternating current (AC), and convert it to 
lower-voltage direct current (DC) power. Because these products operate 
in a similar manner, DOE is consolidating its evaluation of potential 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power 
supplies together in a single rulemaking proceeding. Additional details 
related to the authority and background of this rulemaking can be found 
in section I of the NOPR. 75 FR 16958, 16959-16960.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    Today's final rule does two key things. First, it adopts new test 
procedures for the active mode of battery chargers and all modes of 
multiple-voltage external power supplies. Second, it modifies existing 
parts of the battery charger and external power supply test procedures 
(for example, the duration of the battery charger standby and off mode 
tests). In doing so, it amends both appendices Y and Z in multiple 
places. Furthermore, although DOE is retaining the current language of 
certain sections of appendices Y and Z, in selecting amendments for 
inclusion in today's final rule, DOE considered all aspects of the 
existing battery charger and external power supply test procedures. By 
examining these procedures in this comprehensive manner, this 
rulemaking satisfies the 7-year review requirement of 42 U.S.C. 
6293(b). Subsequent amendments will, as needed, be made in a manner 
consistent with the schedule set out in that provision.
    As explained in greater detail in this notice, the final rule makes 
the following specific changes to the current regulations:
    (1) Inserts a new test procedure to measure the energy consumption 
of battery chargers in active mode to assist in the development of 
energy conservation standards;
    (2) Amends the battery charger test procedure to decrease the 
testing time of battery chargers in standby and off modes;
    (3) Amends the single-voltage external power supply test procedure 
to accommodate external power supplies with Universal Serial Bus (USB) 
outputs and other types of external power supplies that cannot be 
tested in accordance with the current test procedure; and
    (4) Inserts a new test procedure for multiple-voltage external 
power supplies, a type of non-Class A external power supply that DOE 
evaluated in its non-Class A determination analysis and that will be 
covered under the energy conservation standard.
    Table II.1 lists the sections of 10 CFR part 430 affected by the 
amendments in this rule. The left-hand column in the table cites the 
locations of the affected CFR provisions, while the right-hand column 
lists the changes.

[[Page 31752]]

 Table II.1--Summary of Proposed Changes and Affected Sections of 10 CFR
                                Part 430
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Existing Section in 10 CFR Part 430        Summary of modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 430.23 of Subpart B--Test         Modify `(aa) battery
 procedures for the measurement of        charger' to include energy
 energy and water consumption.            consumption in active mode.
Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430--     Renumber the existing
 Uniform Test Method for Measuring the    sections to ease referencing
 Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers.  and use by testing
                                          technicians.
    1. Scope...........................   Limit scope to include
                                          only battery chargers intended
                                          for operation in the United
                                          States.
    2. Definitions.....................   Add definitions for:
                                            [cir] Active power or real
                                             power (P).
                                            [cir] Ambient temperature.
                                            [cir] Apparent power (S).
                                            [cir] Batch charger.
                                            [cir] Battery rest period.
                                            [cir] C-rate.
                                            [cir] Equalization.
                                            [cir] Instructions or
                                             manufacturer's
                                             instructions.
                                            [cir] Measured charge
                                             capacity.
                                            [cir] Rated battery voltage.
                                            [cir] Rated charge capacity.
                                            [cir] Rated energy capacity.
                                            [cir] Total harmonic
                                             distortion (THD).
                                            [cir] Unit under test (UUT).
                                          Remove definitions
                                          for:
                                            [cir] Accumulated nonactive
                                             energy.
                                            [cir] Energy ratio or
                                             nonactive energy ratio.
                                          Modify definitions
                                          for:
                                            [cir] Active mode.
                                            [cir] Multi-port charger.
                                            [cir] Multi-voltage [agrave]
                                             la carte charger.
                                            [cir] Standby mode.
    3. Test Apparatus and General         Insert apparatus and
     Instructions.                        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         Modify 3(b) to
     Instructions.                        accommodate multiple-voltage
                                          external power supplies.
    4. Test Measurement................   Modify 4(a) to
                                          accommodate external power
                                          supplies that communicate with
                                          the load, perform current
                                          limiting, or have output power
                                          greater than 250 watts.
                                          Modify 4(b) to
                                          accommodate multiple-voltage
                                          external power supplies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing today's amendments, DOE considered comments received 
from interested parties in response to the standby and off mode test 
procedure, framework document, NOPR, and NOPR public meeting. Although 
a part of the standards rulemaking, DOE also considered comments to the 
framework document insofar as these comments had any bearing with 
respect to test procedure-related items. Numerous commenters sought to 
have DOE require testing in additional modes of operation in which 
products had not been tested under the current procedure, such as 
active or charge mode. DOE reviewed the existing test procedures for 
battery chargers and external power supplies and found that, with some 
modifications, they could be used as a basis for updating DOE's test 
procedures to address some of the limitations identified by commenters. 
These modifications are discussed in greater detail below.
    Interested parties who commented on the NOPR consisted of 
manufacturers (Associate of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Power 
Tool Institute (PTI), Euro-Pro, Phillips, Sony Electronics, Inc., 
Delta-Q Technologies Corp. and Wahl Clipper); an energy efficiency 
advocate (Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP)); and utility 
companies (Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California 
Edison).
    DOE also examined whether the amendments to its test procedures 
would significantly change the measured energy consumption or 
efficiency of battery chargers or external power supplies. This 
question is particularly important for Class A external power supplies, 
which are subject to the EISA minimum efficiency standard that took 
effect on July 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A))
    The amendments to the single-voltage external power supply test 
procedure, which is used to test compliance with Class A external power 
supply standards, affect the measured efficiency of external power 
supplies with USB outputs and external power supplies that communicate 
with their loads--which together comprise the subset of Class A 
external power supplies to which these amendments would apply. The term 
``communicating'' with a load refers to an external power supply's 
ability to identify or otherwise exchange

[[Page 31753]]

information with its load (i.e., the end-use product to which it is 
connected). This technique is used to tailor the operation of the 
external power supply to the needs of the load as well as to prevent 
the possibility of the supply being used with incompatible loads, which 
could damage the product. While most external power supplies provide 
power at a fixed output voltage regardless of what load is connected to 
their outputs, some external power supplies will only provide power 
once they have ``communicated'' with the load and identified it as the 
intended load.
    The remaining amendments included in today's final rule have the 
following impacts on measured energy consumption or efficiency:
    (1) The battery charger active mode test procedure amendment 
changes the measured energy consumption of battery chargers by 
eliminating the nonactive energy ratio metric and replacing it with a 
new metric that measures energy consumption in active mode;
    (2) The standby and off mode test procedure amendment changes the 
measured energy consumption of battery chargers or external power 
supplies when operating in these modes; and
    (3) The multiple-voltage external power supply amendment inserts a 
new test procedure for these products.
    The procedure being adopted today will be used to help DOE in 
establishing the energy conservation standards for these products 
through a separate rulemaking that is currently underway.

A. Battery Charger Active Mode Test Procedure

    Prior to this final rule, the DOE battery charger test procedure, 
first created by the EPACT 2005 En Masse final rule (71 FR 71340 
(December 8, 2006)) and amended by the standby and off mode test 
procedure final rule (74 FR 13318 (March 27, 2009)), did not measure 
battery charger energy consumption in all modes. Instead, it excluded 
the energy consumed by the battery charger while charging a battery 
(i.e. active mode energy consumption). The procedure measured energy 
consumption only in standby (or no battery) and off modes (i.e. 
inactive mode energy consumption). DOE had adopted this earlier 
approach because the timing of the rulemaking did not permit an 
addition of an active mode test procedure at that time. 71 FR 71340, 
71360.
    The battery charger active mode test procedure in today's final 
rule removes the inactive mode calculation. This calculation, found in 
section 4(a) of appendix Y, is a composite of different operational 
modes that, under the changes introduced by today's final rule, are to 
be measured separately.
    The final rule also makes three additional key changes to the 
battery charger test procedure. First, it adds an active mode 
measurement to section 4(b) to account for the energy consumed by a 
battery charger while it is charging a battery. Second, it amends the 
scope, definitions, and test apparatus and general instructions 
(sections 1, 2, and 3) to address the changes brought about by the 
introduction of the new active mode test procedure. Third, it 
reorganizes the battery charger sections to enhance their readability 
and ease of use to help reduce the prospect of differing 
interpretations while conducting the test.
    The active mode amendment that DOE is adopting today is based in 
large part on the battery charger system test procedure already adopted 
by the California Energy Commission (CEC).\2\ DOE, however, has 
modified that procedure to help decrease the overall testing burden 
faced by manufacturers when testing these products and by increasing 
the procedure's clarity. Examples of how DOE has accomplished these 
goals include modifying the procedure to use terms consistent with 
other DOE rulemakings and dividing more complex procedures into 
simpler, discrete steps for testing technicians to follow. These 
changes are discussed further in section III.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ecos 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/2008rulemaking/2008-AAER-1B/2008-11-19_BATTERY_CHARGER_SYSTEM_TEST_PROCEDURE.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Review of Battery Charger and External Power Supply Standby Mode and 
Off Mode Test Procedures

    DOE addressed the EPCA requirements to prescribe definitions and 
test procedures for measuring the energy consumption of external power 
supplies and battery chargers in standby and off modes (42 U.S.C. 
6298(gg)(A) and (B)) in its March 27, 2009, test procedure final rule. 
That final rule incorporated standby and off mode measurements as well 
as updated definitions into appendices Y and Z. 74 FR 13318.
    In today's final rule, DOE amends the battery charger test 
procedure by requiring the use of a 30-minute warm-up period followed 
by a 10-minute measurement period. Previously, the DOE test procedure 
required a 1-hour measurement period. This amendment harmonizes DOE's 
standby and off mode measurement requirement for battery chargers with 
the requirement contained in section IV of part 1 of the CEC battery 
charger test procedure. DOE is harmonizing its procedure with the CEC 
battery charger test procedure to produce a less burdensome procedure 
while preserving testing accuracy. No changes are being made to the 
standby and off mode test procedures for external power supplies. 
Detailed discussion of the changes can be found in section III.C.

C. Review of Single-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure

    DOE is amending the test procedure for single-voltage external 
power supplies to accommodate several classes of external power 
supplies that cannot be tested in a representative or repeatable manner 
under the current test procedure. These external power supplies include 
those devices that (1) communicate with their loads through USB and 
other protocols (e.g. I2C and TCP/IP),\3\ (2) limit their output 
current below the maximum current listed on their nameplates, and (3) 
have output power in excess of 250 watts. In its NOPR, DOE presented a 
general outline for a possible test method for these products, but 
stated that because these types of external power supplies did not 
exist in significant numbers in the market, DOE was unable to analyze 
them in depth and develop a testing approach using the single-voltage 
external power supply procedure. 75 FR 16958, 16962. DOE received 
generally supportive comments on its proposals for dealing with the 
three different external power supply types, especially those proposals 
regarding external power supplies that communicate with their loads. 
The test procedure revisions adopted in this final rule are described 
in greater detail in section III.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Devices of this type include cellular telephones and 
portable media players such as MP3 players.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure

    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), DOE performed a 
determination analysis and concluded that those external power supplies 
equipped with multiple simultaneous output voltages were appropriate 
candidates for separate energy conservation standards. 75 FR 16958, 
16974. Because DOE was unaware of any procedure that could be used to 
measure the energy consumption of these devices, DOE sought to develop 
such a procedure by modifying the

[[Page 31754]]

procedures currently used by the CEC when measuring the energy 
consumption of single-voltage external power supplies \4\ and internal 
power supplies.\5\ 73 FR 48054, 48058 (August 15, 2008). DOE looked to 
the CEC's test procedure as the starting point for creating a multiple 
voltage external power supply procedure because of the aforementioned 
positive determination. DOE also believed that the CEC test procedure 
was the most accurate and appropriate of all the test procedures it 
examined and that adopting the CEC test procedure would allow DOE to 
maintain consistency with DOE's single-voltage external power supply 
test procedure, which was also based on a CEC test procedure. DOE's 73 
FR 48064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Calwell, C., Foster, S., and Reeder, T. Test Method for 
Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc 
and Ac-Ac Power Supplies, August 11, 2004, previously incorporated 
by reference into appendix Y. Ecos Consulting for the California 
Energy Commission; Sacramento, CA. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/downloads/power_supplies/EPSupplyEffic_TestMethod_0804.pdf.
    \5\ Mansoor, A., et al. and May-Ostendorp, P., et al. 
Generalized Test Protocol for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 
Internal Ac-Dc Power Supplies, Rev. 6.4.3. October 22, 2009. EPRI 
and Ecos Consulting for the California Energy Commission; 
Sacramento, CA. http://efficientpowersupplies.epri.com/pages/Latest_Protocol/Generalized_Internal_Power_Supply_Efficiency_Test_Protocol_R6.4.3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's final rule, DOE is adopting a test procedure generally 
consistent with both its earlier approach from its August 2008 proposal 
to address multiple-voltage external power supplies within the context 
of its standby mode test procedure and its more recent proposal. See 73 
FR 48054, 48064 and 75 FR 16958, 16974. Although DOE had initially 
considered the adoption of a multiple-voltage external power supply 
procedure as part of its August 2008 NOPR, it declined to include such 
a procedure in the March 2009 final rule because of the substantial 
number of issues raised by commenters and the limited time provided by 
EISA 2007 to fully consider all of these concerns. 74 FR 13322. These 
concerns have since been resolved in light of additional comments, 
data, and information developed as part of today's final rule.
    Incorporating this amendment into the external power supply test 
procedure will enable DOE to evaluate power consumption for multiple-
voltage external power supplies in all modes of operation: active, 
standby (or no-load), and off. A detailed discussion of DOE's test 
procedure for multiple-voltage external power supplies can be found in 
section III.E.

III. Discussion

    Commenters raised a variety of issues related to DOE's proposal. 
These issues are addressed in greater detail in the sections that 
follow.

A. Effective Date for the Amended Test Procedures

    The April 2010 proposal provided for an effective date of 30 days 
after publication of the final rule. That notice also indicated that 
the amendments to the battery charger and non-Class A external power 
supply test procedures would be required to be used once DOE sets 
standards for these particular products. 75 FR 16958, 16963.
    Commenters voiced concerns with the 30-day effective date set forth 
in the test procedure NOPR. AHAM and PTI specifically asked for 
clarification on the language regarding the effective date. (AHAM, Pub. 
Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 220; PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 236) 
AHAM specifically voiced that clarification is important to prevent the 
need for relabeling products and avoiding possible conflicts with 
applicable State and ENERGY STAR specifications. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 
Tran., No. 2 at p. 223)
    In addition to clarity, commenters requested more time to comply. 
Euro-Pro commented that it is difficult to re-label products, update 
all associated paperwork and advertisements, and sell the product in 
the marketplace within 30 days. (Euro-Pro, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 
224) Euro-Pro further commented that it is difficult to comply with the 
new test procedure, whether given 30 or 180 days, and that DOE should 
provide a calendar date by which the procedure would go into effect. 
(Euro-Pro, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 233) Finally, AHAM urged DOE to 
make the test procedure effective, including the ENERGY STAR test 
procedure, when the standard becomes effective, to avoid confusion and 
issues with non-conformance. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4)
    Commenters indicated that providing a lead time of 30 days would be 
insufficient to transition to a new test procedure. DOE notes that, any 
representations of energy use or efficiency made by a manufacturer must 
be based on the test procedure established by DOE. Manufacturers have 
180 days from the establishment of that procedure to ensure that any 
such representations are based on that DOE-established test procedure. 
42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)
    Currently, there are no energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers and non-Class A external power supplies. To clarify the timing 
of the test procedure requirements that DOE is adopting today, DOE is 
amending the regulatory text to address this issue. Because of the 180-
day requirement, as a practical matter, manufacturers have a full six 
months to adjust to the new procedure before having to make 
representations based on that procedure. Manufacturers would need to 
use the new procedure for battery chargers and non-Class A external 
power supplies once the this date for making representations is 
reached. Any written representations, such as those prescribed by the 
Federal Trade Commission in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6294, would need 
to be made consistent with the test procedure as amended by today's 
final rule. Accordingly, although today's rule becomes effective 30 
days after publication in the Federal Register, manufacturers have 180 
days from the publication of today's final rule to use the test 
procedure for any written representation of energy efficiency or use. 
And since such requirements are not likely to be established until 
after DOE sets energy efficiency standards for these products in mid- 
to-late 2011, manufacturers will have considerable time to adjust to 
the new procedure before they are required to use this procedure to 
certify compliance with those new standards. (Given that today's rule 
does not prescribe any substantive changes that would affect the 
measured energy efficiency or use of Class A external power supplies, 
DOE does not anticipate any difficulties for manufacturers who are 
certifying these products.)
    Finally, interested parties asked DOE to clarify how products that 
cannot be tested can be sold in the United States. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 
12; SCE, No. 13 at p. 12; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 12) They commented that 
DOE should disallow the sale of products that cannot be tested by the 
test procedure, but wanted to ensure that a product that must be tested 
under the procedure does not provide a path for manufacturers to avoid 
the energy conservation standard requirements. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 12; 
SCE, No. 13 at p. 12; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 12) DOE acknowledges the 
interested parties' concerns and clarifies that, in general, products 
that cannot be tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure will 
not be permitted to be sold in the United States. However, a process is 
available to permit manufacturer to seek a waiver from the test 
procedure in special circumstances. As part of this process, an 
alternative test procedure must be provided by the manufacturer seeking 
the waiver in

[[Page 31755]]

order to provide a means to measure the energy use or efficiency of 
that product. See 10 CFR 431.27 (detailing requirements for obtaining a 
waiver from the required test procedure).

B. Battery Charger Active Mode Test Procedure

    Prior to today's final rule, the battery charger test procedure 
consisted of four parts: (1) Scope, (2) definitions, (3) test apparatus 
and general instructions, and (4) test measurement. The test 
measurement section included four subparts to address the measurement 
of four separate energy consumption modes--inactive mode,\6\ active 
mode, standby mode, and off-mode. Inactive mode energy consumption is 
measured for purposes of evaluating battery charger performance under 
the voluntary ENERGY STAR testing program.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The inactive mode energy consumption measurement consists of 
the energy measured over 36 hours while the battery charger is in 
maintenance mode, followed by 12 hours in standby (no-battery) mode, 
with the possibility of abbreviating the measurement to 6 hours and 
1 hour, respectively under certain conditions.
    \7\ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Test Methodology for 
Determining the Energy Performance of Battery Charging Systems. 
December 2005. Washington, DC. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/downloads/Battery_Chargers_Test_Method.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the standby and off mode test procedure rulemaking from 
2008, numerous interested parties commented that the current DOE test 
procedure is insufficient for the development of energy conservation 
standards because it does not measure energy consumption during active 
(i.e., charging) mode. Many of these interested parties also 
recommended that DOE adopt the optional battery charger test procedure 
then under consideration in draft form at the CEC. As mentioned in the 
standby and off mode test procedure final rule, 74 FR 13318, DOE was 
unable to act on these comments, as it had not contemplated the 
inclusion of any active mode changes in the standby and off mode test 
procedure NOPR and there was insufficient time to consider this option 
in light of the statutory deadline for that rulemaking. 73 FR 48054 
(August 15, 2008).
1. Incorporation of the CEC Test Procedure
    On December 3, 2008, CEC adopted version 2.2 of the test procedure 
developed by Ecos Consulting, EPRI Solutions, and Southern California 
Edison (SCE), as an optional test procedure for the measurement of 
battery charger energy consumption during charging (active), 
maintenance, no-battery (standby), and off modes. The test procedure 
was incorporated by reference into section 1604(w) of title 20 of the 
California Code of Regulations,\8\ alongside the DOE test procedure 
from appendix Y. Details of the CEC test procedure can be found in 
section III.1 of the NOPR. 75 FR 16964. See also 20 Cal. Code 1604(w) 
(referring to the 2008 DOE test procedure and the California test 
method for battery chargers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ California Energy Commission (CEC), ``2009 Appliance 
Efficiency Regulations,'' August 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both the framework document and NOPR, DOE stated its intention 
to amend the battery charger test procedure in appendix Y to include an 
active mode measurement. See 74 FR 26818 and 75 FR 16958. Commenters 
supported the active mode measurement, and encouraged DOE to adopt the 
CEC test procedure in this regard. At the NOPR public meeting and in 
written comments, AHAM generally supported the proposed test procedure 
based on the CEC procedure and noted that its inclusion of an active 
mode energy measurement made it an improvement over the procedure 
already in place. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 25; No. 10 at p. 
2) AHAM further commented that the CEC test procedure provides a good 
method for testing active mode. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 
65-66) PTI agreed with DOE's decision to incorporate elements from the 
CEC test procedure into the NOPR. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 
249-250) PG&E was supportive of DOE adopting an active mode that 
largely follows the CEC test procedure because that procedure, in 
PG&E's view, is a solid base for performing battery charger testing. 
(PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 14) PG&E, Delta-Q and AHAM also 
supported DOE's decision to drop the inactive mode procedure in favor 
of an active mode one. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 51-52; 
AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 47; Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2)
    As described in section III.B of the NOPR, DOE examined three other 
procedures that are used world-wide to measure battery charger energy 
consumption--the EPA-developed procedure used for ENERGY STAR-
qualification, Canadian Standards Association (CSA) C381.2, and the CEC 
test procedure on which DOE based its proposal. 75 FR 16964. After 
examining these procedures and conducting tests using them, DOE decided 
that the CEC test procedure provided all of the necessary outputs with 
reasonably good accuracy and minimal variability. The EPA-developed 
procedure and the CSA test procedure both lacked a method for measuring 
active mode energy consumption, a measurement that DOE and interested 
parties believe is necessary to establish meaningful energy 
conservation standards. Therefore, for these reasons, and in light of 
the general support that interested parties gave to the prospect of 
incorporating a CEC-based test procedure, DOE is basing its battery 
charger test procedure on the methodology of the CEC procedure but with 
some modifications to help increase its clarity and repeatability, and 
minimize the testing burden. (Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) 
These modifications are outlined in the following sections.
2. Scope
a. Battery Chargers Versus External Power Supplies
    As discussed in the NOPR, the battery charger test procedure 
applies to: ``battery chargers operating at either DC or United States 
AC line voltage (120V at 60Hz).'' 75 FR 16958, 16979. In written and 
verbal comments, interested parties noted that the proposed battery 
charger test procedure did not clearly explain how DOE would 
distinguish a battery charger from an external power supply for 
purposes of testing requirements.
    AHAM expressed numerous concerns regarding the proposal's scope. In 
its view, the procedure should have a scope that clearly outlines what 
the test procedure covers. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 42) AHAM 
also asserted that any differences between the scope of coverage of the 
DOE and CEC test procedures stemming from the treatment of the battery 
charger's wall adapter (i.e., whether it is tested separately as an 
external power supply or as part of the battery charger) may cause 
problems once the DOE test procedure for battery chargers becomes 
effective. Manufacturers may not know which procedure to use with their 
particular product since the DOE and CEC definitions of battery 
chargers and external power supplies differ. As a result, in its view, 
manufacturers will be unsure how to test and label their products. 
(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 228) As an example, AHAM argued 
that non-Class A, motor-operated or detachable battery external power 
supplies that use charge control circuitry should be viewed as part of 
a battery charging system and be tested as part of the overall battery 
charger. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 37) It also suggested that 
to avoid confusion and allow for greater accuracy, DOE

[[Page 31756]]

should specify that the battery charger test procedure should be the 
only test procedure used to test battery chargers and all parts of 
battery chargers.
    DOE notes that the approach suggested by AHAM would eliminate the 
possibility of regulating external power supplies packaged with battery 
chargers under the external power supplies standard. (AHAM, No. 10 at 
p. 4) This approach, however, also contains some inherent problems. 
Because an external power supply can provide power to one or more parts 
of an application simultaneously, limiting the procedure in the manner 
suggested by AHAM would similarly limit DOE's ability to capture 
certain aspects of the energy consumption characteristics of these 
products. For certain products, such as a power tool, the external 
power supply might only provide power to the battery charger. However, 
for products such as laptops, the external power supply might 
simultaneously provide power to the battery charger and other 
functions, such as the screen and processor. If DOE were to follow 
AHAM's suggestion, it would be unable to capture the potential energy 
savings from the external power supply to parts of an application other 
than the battery charger.
    AHAM also stated that it is difficult to comment on the test 
procedure without knowing how energy standards will apply to these 
products and believed it would be inappropriate to separate the testing 
of any portions of the battery recharging circuit as part of the test 
procedure. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 2)
    Separately, AHAM asserted that, in its view, DOE has not clearly 
explained how the battery charger test procedure schedule integrates 
with the test procedure for Class A or non-Class A external power 
supply devices, or any combination thereof. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 
2 at p. 27) AHAM also stated that manufacturers are currently 
``required to report their energy usage to California to indicate by a 
Roman numeral (`IV' or `V') the level of external power supply that the 
wall adapter may utilize.'' In its view, DOE has not yet clarified how 
a wall adapter would be treated--i.e., as a separate and distinct Non-
Class-A external power supply or as part of a battery charger--
manufacturers would not know which energy conservation standard would 
apply. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) Finally, AHAM commented that as a result 
of a recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) reached between DOE and 
EPA, ENERGY STAR may be obligated to use the DOE test procedure if it 
is available. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 236) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 2009 EPA-DOE Memorandum of Understanding: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=partners.mou.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wahl recommended that DOE should have one test procedure and 
regulation for an individual product. Products should be classified as 
an external power supply or as a battery charger and regulated to one 
standard or the other but not both. (Wahl Clipper, No. 9, at p. 1)
    DOE acknowledges that interested parties have a number of concerns 
about the scope of the battery charger test procedure. DOE will address 
these issues and explain its approach in greater detail concerning how 
to delineate which products are battery chargers and which are external 
power supplies in the standards rulemaking.
b. Input Voltage and Frequency
    As proposed in the NOPR, the scope of the DOE test procedure 
encompasses products that use DC or AC input voltages of 115 volts (V) 
at 60 hertz (Hz). 75 FR 16958, 16965. This scope differs from that of 
the CEC test procedure, which requires, when possible, the testing of 
units that accept AC line-voltage input at two voltage and frequency 
combinations: 115 V at 60 Hz and 230 V at 50 Hz. At the NOPR public 
meeting, commenters expressed different opinions concerning the 
rulemaking's scope.
    Delta-Q, AHAM, and Sony believed that the scope should be limited 
to cover only products that use DC or AC 115 V at 60 Hz. (Delta-Q, No. 
5 at p. 1; Sony, No. 6 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 8) Delta-Q cautioned 
``against some overlap with any solar industry standards that may apply 
to battery chargers operating with DC input.'' (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1) 
Sony further supported DOE's proposal by stating that limiting testing 
to a single input voltage would reduce test costs and time and would be 
consistent with the external power supply test procedure. (Sony, No. 6 
at p. 2)
    Alternatively, ASAP, PG&E and SCE encouraged DOE to allow for input 
voltages higher than 115 V, such as 230 V at 60 Hz, because there are 
some high-power consumer battery chargers that operate at 230 to 240 V 
at 60 Hz. These chargers include charger/inverter units that connect 
between the electrical grid and the battery of many consumer 
photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy systems, as well as rapid chargers 
for lead acid batteries. (ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 1-2; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 
1-2; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) These commenters indicated that power at 
230 V is available in most U.S. households, and products that use this 
higher voltage may become more prevalent as the Federal government 
provides tax incentives for residential PV systems that employ these 
higher output voltage devices. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at 
p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) To account for testing at either input 
voltage and frequency combination, ASAP, PG&E, and SCE urged DOE to 
adopt language indicating that if the unit under test (UUT) is intended 
(i.e., designed) for operation on AC line voltage-input of 110 V to 125 
V 60 Hz, it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. Similarly, these 
commenters added that if the UUT is not intended for operation at 110 V 
to 125 V at 60 Hz, but is intended for operation at 220 to 240 V at 60 
Hz, it should be tested at 230 V at 60 Hz. In the case of a UUT that is 
designed for operation on AC line-voltage input but cannot be operated 
at either of these voltages, this unit should not be tested under the 
procedure. See generally, ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; 
SCE, No. 13 at p. 2.
    Further, these commenters argued that when testing products of the 
same voltage at both 50 and 60 Hz, switch mode power supplies showed 
negligible difference in power consumption, and products with line-
frequency transformers showed higher power consumption at 50 Hz. (ASAP, 
No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) In their 
view, if DOE included higher voltage products in its scope, DOE could 
assume that if a product tested at 230 V at 50 Hz demonstrates 
compliance, it would also comply at 230 V at 60 Hz because at 50 Hz, it 
would be, presumably, consuming more power. Therefore, DOE could accept 
a test result at 230 V at 50 Hz as a substitute for 230 V at 60 Hz. 
(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) 
However, these commenters provided no data in support of these claims.
    Although some interested parties were concerned with the scope of 
the battery charger test procedure, DOE is retaining the scope as it 
was presented in its NOPR. DOE acknowledges that consumer products 
operate at different voltage and frequency combinations. However, DOE 
has not encountered consumer products that operate only at input 
voltages other than 115 V throughout this rulemaking process. 
Commenters provided no evidence of such products being available. For 
this reason, DOE believes that, to the extent that any such products 
exist, these products comprise, at most, an extremely small portion of 
the battery

[[Page 31757]]

charger market. Consequently, DOE has decided at this time not to 
require the use of a separate voltage in addition to 115 V. DOE does 
not anticipate that its decision to exclude them from this rulemaking 
will have a significant impact on the annual energy consumption of 
battery chargers as a whole. However, DOE may revisit this decision in 
subsequent rulemakings.
c. DC Input Battery Chargers
    In this rulemaking, DOE covers both AC- (as discussed, above) and 
DC-input battery chargers. In its comments, AHAM questioned whether DOE 
has the authority to regulate DC-input battery chargers, particularly 
within the context of those devices that have automotive-related 
applications--and how the proposed regulation of such products relates 
to the need for reducing power demanded from utilities. (AHAM, No. 10 
at p. 5) AHAM added that if this approach relates to battery charging 
energy consumption from other electronics sources (i.e. charging a cell 
phone from a laptop computer), it suggested that DOE explain how it 
will segregate the energy from the functions of the laptop to the 
battery charger. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) AHAM also stated that DOE 
should not focus on DC input battery chargers, but rather focus only on 
non-Class A power supplies and AC input battery chargers. (AHAM, No. 10 
at p. 5)
    Additionally, in response to the preliminary analysis for the 
corresponding battery charger and external power supply energy 
conservation standards rulemaking, DOE received other comments 
regarding in-vehicle chargers.\10\ CEA and Motorola both stated that 
DOE's test procedure should clarify its stance regarding in-vehicle 
chargers while also recommending that such chargers be dropped from the 
scope of coverage for both the test procedure and the energy 
conservation standards rulemakings. (CEA, No. 48 at p. 3 and Motorola, 
No. 50 at pp. 2-3) Motorola commented that the CEC test procedure does 
not have a clear stance for in-vehicle electronics because the stated 
scope of the test procedure excludes battery chargers that do not 
connect to the utility grid, yet there are stipulations for testing 
devices that connect to cigarette outlets in automotive equipment and 
USB ports. (Motorola, No. 50 at pp. 2-3). CEA commented that the 
``stated scope of the DOE test procedure clearly excludes in-vehicle 
`DC-in, DC-out' battery charging systems which are not connected to the 
utility grid. However, there are instructions in the test method for 
testing these types of battery charging systems.'' (CEA, No. 48 at p. 
3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The comments listed in this paragraph come from 
administrative record for the parallel rulemaking on energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers and external power 
supplies. The reference docket number is EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 (RIN: 
1904-AB57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, DOE has the authority to cover a wide variety of 
consumer products, excluding those consumer products ``designed solely 
for use in recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment''. 42 
U.S.C. 6292(a). In DOE's view, this exclusion does not apply to any of 
the DC-input devices that would likely be affected by the procedure 
being promulgated today. While some of these products may be designed 
to work in conjunction with certain mobile equipment, such as for the 
purpose of recharging the battery of a golf car, DOE has found that 
none of the products that were considered within the context of this 
rulemaking--or of any related standards rulemaking activities--involved 
products that were designed solely for use in recreational vehicles and 
other mobile equipment. For example, cell phone chargers that work with 
DC current (as would be available in a recreational vehicle) also come 
equipped (or are designed to work) with wall adapters. As a result, 
such devices are not ``designed solely'' for use in a recreational 
vehicle and other mobile equipment.
    However, as a result of the aforementioned provision, DOE is 
modifying its procedure for determining how a product should be tested. 
If a manufacturer packages its product with a wall adapter or the 
manufacturer recommends or sells a wall adapter for use with its 
product, the battery charger shall be tested with that wall adapter. If 
this is not the case and the product, such as a GPS device, only works 
with a DC input through either a car charger or a USB port, that device 
will be tested with the 5 V DC input that corresponds to the USB port 
configuration.
    Consistent with this view, DOE plans to proceed with the scope 
proposed in the NOPR, which includes testing DC-input battery chargers. 
While EPCA specifies the input voltage that applies to an external 
power supply as part of that product's statutory definition, it does 
not place similar limitations with respect to the input voltage of 
battery chargers that DOE may regulate. Further, while many DC-input 
battery chargers may be designed to work with a recreational vehicle or 
other mobile equipment, these chargers are not ``designed solely for 
use'' in these applications since many, if not all, of these chargers 
are designed to work in conjunction with wall adapters, USB ports, or 
through other electrical connections to obtain AC mains power. In light 
of the absence of any specific language that would otherwise prevent 
DOE from regulating battery chargers that operate with a DC-input, and 
the fact that these devices are not designed exclusively for use in 
recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment, DOE believes it has 
the authority to regulate such products. Whether DOE opts to regulate 
these products is a decision based on whether energy conservation 
standards for these products achieve the maximum energy savings, are 
technologically feasible, and are economically justified. See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2). As part of the energy conservation standards setting 
process, DOE plans to separately evaluate those DC-input battery 
chargers and determine whether it is technically and economically 
feasible to set standards for them in a manner consistent with the 
applicable statutory requirements.
d. High-Power Battery Chargers
    DOE sought comment on how it should address the treatment of high-
power battery chargers. In comments, Delta-Q expressed concern with the 
approach contained in the current version of appendix Y, which tests 
all battery chargers in the same manner, irrespective of the amount of 
power they use. Delta-Q stated that they are very concerned about how 
the test procedure would measure the energy use of higher power (750-
1500W) chargers on larger (>200Ah) batteries, because the potential 
variability in the batteries is greater than in smaller batteries. This 
greater variability can impact the entire system and the calculated 
energy efficiency. To address this issue, Delta-Q suggested the use of 
an electronic load to simulate a battery pack, a standard battery make/
model with a certain age range or excluding batteries above a certain 
size from the test procedure (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1).
    As proposed in the NOPR, today's final rule specifies that both the 
battery charger and its battery shall be new products of the type and 
condition that would be sold to a customer (i.e. end-user). 75 FR 
16958, 16981. DOE is aware of the potential benefit that exists from 
using a battery simulator and testing with an electronic load, namely, 
decreased variability in test results for large lead-acid batteries. 
However, DOE is unaware of any existing test procedures that rely on 
this particular method, but is aware of test procedures for battery 
chargers that require testing with the physical batteries that are 
associated with the charger being tested. The fact that there are no 
currently

[[Page 31758]]

recognized standard test procedures that rely on simulators suggests 
that testing with physical batteries rather than simulators is not only 
preferable but an appropriate and acceptable means to accurately test 
battery chargers, including those products that charge extremely large 
batteries (i.e. those used in forklifts or golf cars).
    Additionally, because DOE is unaware of test procedures that use 
battery simulators, DOE would need to develop such procedures on its 
own, which would require considerably more testing and analysis and 
potentially involve additional uncertainty given the absence of any 
currently existing protocols. Potential concerns include determining 
how such a device would be used in a test procedure and how 
representative such a device would be of an actual battery, as well as 
other considerations, all of which would need to be vetted publicly. 
DOE is confident that today's final rule will result in repeatable test 
results for all battery chargers, including those that use large 
batteries, because of the requirements that are being added when 
selecting a battery to test and from DOE's experience testing various 
battery chargers. (Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) As a result, 
the procedure will permit performance comparisons across all battery 
charger types with respect to energy usage. Upon the receipt of further 
information, DOE may consider using a battery simulator in a future 
revision to the test procedure. In the absence of this information, 
however, DOE is opting to incorporate its proposed method into the 
battery charger test procedure--i.e. specifying that high-powered 
battery chargers be tested using the same method as used to test all 
battery chargers; that is, by using the associated battery.
e. Consumer Motive Equipment
    The CEC test procedure includes two parts: part 1 covers the energy 
consumption of consumer products with input power under 2 kilowatts, 
whereas part 2 covers the energy consumption of larger industrial 
chargers, which are generally larger in size and capacity. Briefly, 
part 1 measures the input energy to the battery charger when recharging 
a battery that had previously been conditioned (if necessary). Part 2 
requires this same measurement but includes charger output energy 
measurements and tests the charger with the battery at three different 
depths-of-discharge. The NOPR provided a more detailed discussion of 
these parts. See 75 FR 16958, 16964-66 (section III.B.1 and section 
III.B.2).
    DOE proposed testing all battery chargers, including large battery 
chargers for golf cars and other consumer motive equipment, according 
to part 1 of the CEC test procedure. PG&E, ASAP, and SCE agreed with 
DOE's approach for testing the battery chargers used with golf cars and 
other consumer motive equipment. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at 
p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) PG&E informed DOE that golf cars can be 
satisfactorily tested under either part 1 or part 2 of the CEC test 
procedure. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 76) ASAP, PG&E and SCE 
informed DOE that the main drawback of using part 1 to test golf cars 
is that only the worst energy performers are identified under this 
approach. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at 
p. 2) They suggested that when DOE revisits the test procedure, DOE 
should carefully consider the data on the efficiency of current golf 
car battery chargers, and consider amending the test procedure to use 
part 2 at that time. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, 
No. 13 at p. 2)
    Not all interested parties were supportive of using part 1 of the 
CEC test procedure to measure battery chargers for golf cars and other 
consumer motive equipment. In AHAM's view, DOE's proposal 
oversimplifies the issue because these products differ from other 
battery chargers in terms of battery chemistry, usage, and charging 
equipment. Because of these complexities, AHAM argued in favor of 
adopting a separate test procedure section for these products. (AHAM, 
Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 74-75; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) Delta-Q 
reiterated this point but did not believe that there was any reason to 
exclude these 750-1000W size battery chargers from efficiency standards 
(Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1).
    Contrary to the comments made by AHAM, there are similarities 
between battery chargers for golf cars and other consumer products, 
such as motorized wheelchairs, since they all require lead-acid 
batteries and use battery chargers with similar technologies. For more 
information on these products and their technical similarities, please 
refer to chapter 3 of DOE's preliminary technical support document for 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power 
supplies. See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Chapter 3 of the technical support document contains the 
Market and technology Assessment, which includes additional details 
on all products that may be affected by DOE's energy conservation 
standards rulemaking effort. The docket number for this parallel 
rulemaking is EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 (RIN: 1904-AB57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technical similarities between these types of products allow 
them to be tested in a similar fashion. DOE has also considered PG&E's 
experience in developing the CEC test procedure on which DOE's proposal 
is largely based. In developing the CEC procedure, PG&E tested golf 
cars using the methods that are currently prescribed in both Part 1 and 
Part 2 of the CEC test procedure. DOE has given careful consideration 
to PG&E's statement that golf cars and other consumer motive equipment 
can be accurately tested under either part 1 or part 2 of the test 
procedure.
    While DOE agrees with PG&E's overall assessment regarding the 
potential limitations applicable to part 1 of the CEC test, the 
additional testing requirements and complexity of part 2, which was 
intended for industrial applications, suggest that the adoption of part 
2 for consumer products would constitute an unnecessary testing burden 
that would not be likely to increase the accuracy of the test results 
that would otherwise be gleaned from part 1. The test procedure 
provisions in part 2 may be necessary to accurately measure the energy 
efficiency of large industrial battery chargers but for golf cars and 
other types of consumer motive equipment (collectively, consumer motive 
equipment) that fall at the low-power end of the lead-acid battery 
charger range, the need for a specialized test procedure is not as 
clear. For example, part 2 requires a series of tests under various 
conditions to detect any differences in energy consumption. The greater 
comprehensiveness to this approach is better suited to high-power 
industrial chargers, which are already very efficient when compared to 
the consumer products that could be tested under part 2. Moreover, 
since consumer products that could be tested under part 2 have greater 
variations in efficiency than industrial chargers, requiring 
manufacturers to test these products using the simpler test method 
outlined in part 1 should generate sufficiently accurate results 
without imposing the greater burden that would likely be posed by 
requiring part 2. Therefore, in consideration of this situation, 
today's final rule specifies that part 1 be used for these products.
3. Definitions
    DOE proposed to make a number of changes to the definitions in the 
battery charger test procedure contained in 10 CFR, subpart B, appendix 
Y. Specifically, DOE proposed to delete

[[Page 31759]]

two definitions from the current battery charger test procedure, modify 
four definitions, and add 15 new definitions to appendix Y. 75 FR 
16966. After reviewing the comments submitted in response to this 
proposal, DOE has decided to apply certain terms used in the CEC 
procedure as part of the revised set of battery charger-related 
definitions. To implement these changes, DOE is amending section 2 of 
appendix Y by amending, deleting, and incorporating new definitions to 
make appendix Y consistent with the CEC procedure. DOE is also removing 
definitions used only in section 4(a) of appendix Y (inactive mode 
energy consumption measurement), which DOE is removing with today's 
final rule (see section 5.a of this final rule).
a. Deleting Existing Definitions
    The specific changes in today's final rule consist of a series of 
deletions, amendments, and additions. These changes include removing 
the definitions of ``accumulated nonactive energy'' and ``energy ratio 
or nonactive energy ratio'' from the regulations, as they are relevant 
only to the nonactive mode measurement of the procedure. That portion 
of the procedure is being removed as part of this final rule. Details 
of these deletions can be found in section III.B.3.a of the NOPR. 75 FR 
16958, 16966. Commenters did not oppose the proposed deletions.
    DOE received comments suggesting the removal of two definitions 
from its current test procedure. ASAP, PG&E, and SCE recommended the 
removal of definitions of ``detachable'' and ``integral'' batteries, 
which are contained within the definition of ``battery or battery 
pack'' in the current DOE test procedure. These commenters argued that 
these particular definitions are not required when carrying out the 
test procedure and that their inclusion within the regulation could 
create confusion since some batteries are neither detachable nor 
integral. Commenters cited as an example products that use AA or AAA 
rechargeable batteries to power a device, but recharge those batteries 
in a device external to the product. They also added that some lead-
acid batteries for automotive and marine applications may also not meet 
either definition. (ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 10-11; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 10-
11; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 10-11) These commenters further stated that the 
terms are only used for the battery selection process, and ``[t]he key 
element is not whether the batteries are integral or detachable, but 
rather whether or not they are packaged with the charger and therefore 
constitute `typical' batteries.'' (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 11; PG&E, No. 12 
at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at p. 11)
    DOE's test procedure will continue to define detachable and 
integral batteries. Although commenters indicated that these terms are 
only used for the battery selection process, they are also used in the 
standby and off mode tests, which remain as part of the amended test 
procedure. Both of these tests require the disconnection of the battery 
from the end use product except in cases where an integral battery, 
which, by definition, cannot be disconnected from the end use product, 
is used. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y. The continued use 
of these terms and their definitions helps provide clarity to these 
procedures.
b. Revising Existing Definitions
    DOE had also proposed to modify the definitions of ``active mode,'' 
``multi-port charger,'' ``multi-voltage [agrave] la carte charger,'' 
and ``standby mode'' found in appendix Y. The proposed changes were 
minor and designed to clarify the wording of those definitions. DOE 
received no comments regarding these definitions in response to the 
NOPR. For ``active mode'' and ``standby mode,'' DOE is clarifying that 
these terms can be used interchangeably with the terms ``charge mode'' 
and ``no-battery mode'' respectively. Additionally, the terms ``multi-
port charger'' and ``multi-voltage [agrave] la carte charger'' are 
being revised to be consistent with the corresponding CEC definitions 
and are expanded to encompass a batch charger. Details of these 
proposed revisions can be found in section III.B.3.b. of the NOPR. 75 
FR 16958, 16966.
c. Adding New Definitions
    Finally, because DOE proposed adding procedures to measure energy 
consumption in active mode for a battery charger, DOE also proposed the 
inclusion of a number of new corresponding definitions. In particular, 
DOE proposed to add definitions for ``active power or real power (P),'' 
``ambient temperature,'' ``apparent power (S),'' ``batch charger,'' 
``battery rest period,'' ``rated energy capacity,'' ``C-rate,'' 
``equalization,'' ``instructions or manufacturer's instructions,'' 
``measured charge capacity,'' ``rated battery voltage,'' ``rated charge 
capacity,'' ``total harmonic distortion (THD),'' and ``unit under test 
(UUT).'' See 75 FR 16958, 16967.
    Commenters provided feedback on DOE's proposed definitions for 
``instructions or manufacturer's instructions,'' ``power factor,'' 
``rated charge capacity,'' and ``total harmonic distortion,'' as 
discussed in the sections, below. No other comments were provided 
regarding the other proposed definitions.
Instructions or Manufacturer's Instructions
    DOE proposed to define the term ``manufacturer's instructions'' as 
``the documentation packaged with the product in printed or electronic 
form and any information about the product listed on a Web site 
maintained by the manufacturer and accessible by the general public at 
the time of the test.'' 75 FR 16958, 16967. Commenters expressed 
concern with the proposed definition for manufacturer's instructions.
    PG&E referred DOE to the CEC test procedure, which defines the term 
``manufacturing instructions'' broadly to permit testing labs to use 
information that is unavailable to consumers. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 
No. 2 at p. 23) PG&E also supported DOE's decision to expand the 
definition of manufacturer instructions to include information provided 
on manufacturers' Web sites. However, it stated that service 
instructions should be included to enable manufacturers to provide 
information not generally available to consumers. Service instructions 
may include detailed information to technicians that explain how to 
disassemble the product to gain access to an integral battery or a 
battery that has protective circuitry. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at 
pp. 246-247) PTI indicated that such information would not ordinarily 
be provided to consumers in light of the potential safety hazard posed 
by the disassembly of the product by an untrained individual. (PTI, 
Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 247). PTI supported the inclusion of 
service instructions as part of the definition so long as the testing 
is carried out by professional technicians and those detailed 
instructions do not become public. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 
248-249) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE encouraged DOE ``to expand the definition 
of `manufacturer's instructions' to include both consumer instructions 
and service instructions.'' (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 
3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3) They recommended that DOE should take one of 
the following approaches: (1) utilize the original CEC language or (2) 
adopt alternative language in which DOE would define ``manufacturer's 
service instructions to consumers'' separately from ``manufacturer's 
service instructions.'' By defining them separately, DOE can specify 
that only the consumer instructions should be used when setting up a 
product in

[[Page 31760]]

preparation for the charge test, but either can be used to access the 
battery for the discharge test, since disassembly to reach the battery 
will never be needed for the charge test but may be necessary for the 
discharge test. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 
12 at p. 3) Finally, AHAM commented that the test procedure should not 
encourage a test technician to open a sealed battery pack or 
compartment. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7)
    PG&E and PTI both suggested that service instructions should be 
included in the definition of manufacturer instructions, and permit 
these documents to be used to perform testing, according to the CEC 
definition. The CEC defines that term to include ``any service manuals 
or data sheets that the manufacturer offers for sale to independent 
service technicians, whether printed or in electronic form.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Pacific Gas and Electric, California Energy Commision-Pulic 
Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program, and Southern California 
Edison Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure. 
Version 2.2, November 12, 2008, page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering these comments, DOE has decided to modify its 
initial proposal and to adopt the CEC definition for manufacturer's 
instructions, which includes service instructions in its definition. 
DOE is taking this step to ensure that testing technicians have 
adequate information on how to access the battery. DOE will also 
specify that if service instructions are used to perform testing, it 
should clearly be stated in the certification report to avoid potential 
confusion if the particular product is subjected to verification 
testing. A copy of the instructions should be provided to DOE for 
verification purposes.
Power Factor and Crest Factor
    DOE proposed to include definitions for both power factor and crest 
factor as part of the battery charger test procedure. 75 FR 16958, 
16967. The term ``power factor'' denotes the ratio of the power 
consumed by a device relative to the power drawn by a device from 
mains. The term ``crest factor'' refers to the ratio of the 
instantaneous peak voltage relative to the root-mean-square value, 
measured when charging a device. These definitions are not currently 
used as part of the test procedure. DOE received comments both in favor 
and against these proposed definitions.
    ASAP, PG&E and SCE supported DOE's inclusion of power factor and 
crest factor. In their view, the inclusion of these terms in the test 
procedure would broaden its scope and applicability. These commenters 
also believed that even though DOE may not be using these measurements 
and definitions within the context of the current rulemaking activities 
to set energy efficiency standards for battery chargers, their 
inclusion in this test procedure will allow other agencies, such as the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to reference this test 
procedure and develop future policies regarding energy efficiency 
related performance features. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 13; PG&E, No. 12 at 
p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at p. 13)
    AHAM disagreed with these proposed definitions as well as the 
proposed method by which to measure them. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 
at p. 85; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) It argued that measuring power factor 
for the purpose of regulation represents a significant departure from 
most other DOE appliance energy efficiency standards. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 
Tran., No. 2 at pp. 85-86; AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 4) AHAM continued, 
stating that the test procedure provides no method for taking a power 
factor measurement and that part of the problem is that the procedure 
lacks a definition of source impedance. The source impedance is an 
important factor because its definition affects the accurateness of the 
real world losses that would stem from power factor in a consumer 
product. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 86-87; AHAM, No. 10 at 
pp. 4-5) For consumer products, like those that use battery chargers 
covered by this rulemaking, the source impedance is an electrical 
description of the wiring within a house that has a direct impact on 
apparent power and thus, constitutes the power factor measured for a 
device. AHAM also suggested that DOE should conduct studies to 
establish the range of impedance and the possible impacts of power 
factor. (AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 4-5)
    Additionally, PTI was concerned that DOE has not provided any 
details on how to measure power factor. PTI, like AHAM, argued that to 
obtain consistent and meaningful results, DOE must define the source 
impedance and provide a method for how the measurement is taken. (PTI, 
No. 8 at p. 3) PTI also stated that DOE should not include the power 
factor and crest factor test procedure measurements and definitions in 
its final rule. PTI also commented that including these definitions and 
measurement methods in the test procedure would imply that DOE has 
evaluated the merit of measuring power factor and crest factor, which 
it has not; therefore PTI believes that DOE should not define or 
require the measurement of power factor and crest factor. (PTI, No. 8 
at p. 3)
    In today's final rule, DOE has decided to drop its proposal 
regarding power factor and crest factor. At this time, DOE has not 
conducted an analysis on the benefits that could be gained from 
regulating power factor or crest factor for consumer products that use 
battery chargers and commenters offered no data in support of such an 
approach. Although DOE acknowledges that other agencies, such as EPA, 
may have an interest in using these measurements, DOE currently has no 
plans to incorporate either of them for compliance purposes. 
Accordingly, although DOE may revisit this issue at a later date, DOE 
is declining to incorporate power factor and crest factor into today's 
final rule.
Rated Charge Capacity
    DOE proposed to define ``rated charge capacity'' in its 
regulations. Specifically, DOE proposed to define this term as ``the 
capacity the manufacturer declares the battery can store under 
specified test conditions, usually given in ampere-hours (Ah) or 
milliampere-hours (mAh) and typically printed on the label of the 
battery itself * * * '' 75 FR 16958, 16968. The proposed definition was 
consistent with the CEC test procedure's definition.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Pacific Gas and Electric, California Energy Commission-
Pulic Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program, and Southern 
California Edison Energy Efficiency Battery Charger System Test 
Procedure. Version 2.2, November 12, 2008, page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received a single response to this proposal. Sony recommended 
that DOE adopt the current CEC definition for rated charge capacity, 
which allows the option of using a rated charge capacity unit of either 
milliampere-hours (mAh) or ampere-hours (Ah). Sony opposed what it 
believed was a proposal by DOE to use only Ah. (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2) 
DOE notes that its proposed definition includes the use of both Ah and 
mAh. 75 FR 16958, 16980.
    In light of the absence of any objections to its proposed approach, 
DOE will adopt its proposed definition for rated charge capacity.
Total Harmonic Distortion
    In its NOPR, DOE defined ``total harmonic distortion'' as:
    ``the root-mean-square (RMS) value of an AC signal after the 
fundamental component is removed and inter-harmonic components are 
ignored, divided by the RMS value of the fundamental component.'' 75 FR 
16980.
    Responding to this proposal, AHAM suggested that DOE consider the 
language of International

[[Page 31761]]

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, section 1.1.1 
``Supply voltage waveform'' with respect to total harmonic distortion, 
but did not provide reasoning for this recommendation. (AHAM, No. 10 at 
p. 7)
    DOE is adopting the proposed definition. DOE notes that this 
language is based on those definitions that are already in use by the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) through 
standard 1515-2000--as well as DOE's own regulations for external power 
supplies. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z. As a result, the 
industry already follows this definition. Adopting a different 
definition would conflict with DOE's intent to harmonize the approaches 
contained in the battery charger and external power supply test 
procedures, as well as with the industry standard currently in place. 
Therefore, DOE is adopting its proposed definition for this term.
4. Test Apparatus and General Instructions
a. Confidence Intervals
    DOE proposed incorporating confidence qualifiers to the confidence 
intervals in its test procedure. The proposed confidence intervals were 
different from the CEC intervals in that they added a 95% confidence 
qualifier to the CEC intervals. As a result DOE's proposal provided for 
a margin of 5)[deg] C through the 
test.'' (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) Although this was a departure from its 
statements at the NOPR public meeting, AHAM stated

[[Page 31762]]

that it believed this value had support in the International Standards 
community and would be very attainable. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7)
    After evaluating the comments received on this issue, DOE has 
decided not to increase the temperature range and to continue requiring 
an ambient temperature of 20 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius. 
This approach is consistent with the CEC test procedure. The lower 
temperature range is widely accepted and currently used by the 
industry. Adopting this approach, based on information presented to 
DOE, should not impose a new burden on manufacturers to alter their 
testing laboratories since the appropriate operating temperature range 
remains the same. Additionally, this temperature range, which served as 
the basis for the development of the end-of-discharge voltages 
specified, ensures that consistency and the validity of those voltages 
is maintained. For these reasons, DOE is incorporating this range into 
the final rule. DOE notes that while AHAM suggested DOE consider the 
IEC 62301 range of 23 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius, all 
other commenters--including AHAM--indicated that a departure from the 
original temperature range, 20 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius 
has the potential to invalidate the end-of-discharge voltages that have 
been established for the various battery chemistries used in battery 
chargers. Accordingly, DOE is opting not to make such a change and will 
harmonize its test procedure with other industry standards to the 
extent feasible to help ensure the validity of all measured end-of-
discharge voltages.
c. Charge Rate Selection
    DOE proposed to require that when testing a battery charger 
equipped with user controls that enable the user to select from two or 
more charge rates that the test be conducted using the fastest charge 
rate that is recommended by the manufacturer for everyday use. 75 FR 
16958, 16969. Commenters had varying opinions on this approach.
    Delta-Q ``mildly disagreed'' with DOE's proposal for selecting the 
charge rate for testing, as a charger could be significantly less 
efficient at lower power levels, but they did not provide data or other 
support for their reasoning. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1) Alternatively, 
ASAP, PG&E, and SCE supported DOE's proposed approach. (ASAP, No. 11 at 
p. 10; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 10; SCE, No. 13 at p. 10) No other pertinent 
comments were submitted on this issue.
    In light of these comments, and the absence of any supporting data 
or information that would support Delta Q's assertion that a charger 
would operate less efficiently at lower power levels, DOE is adopting 
its proposed approach. DOE believes that, given a choice, users are 
more likely to opt for the fastest charge that does not impact the 
battery's long-term health, as evidenced by the popularity of 
successively faster chargers in the market. (Battery Charger Test Data, 
No. 18.3) DOE presented this view during the NOPR public meeting and 
received no comments disputing this view. Consequently, DOE is 
requiring that testing occur at the fastest charge rate that is 
recommended by the manufacturer for everyday use. Doing so will reduce 
the test procedure burden on manufacturers while producing 
representative measurements of energy use.
d. Battery Selection
    DOE proposed to require testing with a battery or combination of 
batteries, depending on the charger type--i.e. multi-voltage, multi-
port, or multi-capacity. This approach is consistent with the CEC test 
procedure. 75 FR 16958, 16969. For those battery chargers that come 
either with no batteries or multiple batteries, DOE also sought comment 
on an alternative approach that would require the testing of only the 
configuration of batteries most commonly used with the device, but no 
comments or data were received on this approach. 75 FR 16969, 16979.
    AHAM commented that if the manufacturer recommends a battery for 
use with the product, the Department should consider using only that 
battery, and not any others, for measuring energy consumption during 
testing. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 112-113) ASAP, PG&E, and 
SCE supported DOE's proposal to test the battery charger with only the 
typical battery configuration but suggested a change to improve the 
repeatability of the battery selection process. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 10; 
PG&E, No. 12 at p. 10; SCE, No. 13 at p. 10) Specifically, these 
commenters suggested changing section 4.3 (3) of appendix Y to be more 
restrictive than the proposed ``any [battery] suitable for use with the 
charger''-approach set forth in the NOPR. These commenters suggested 
that DOE's test procedure recommend searching within brand name 
batteries that are readily available in the region where the product is 
sold or being tested. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 10; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 10; 
SCE, No. 13 at p. 10)
    DOE is incorporating its proposed approach because it received no 
comments suggesting alternative approaches that would allow a battery 
charger to be tested with a single battery that would generate a result 
that is ``a representative average use cycle.'' See 42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3). Under this approach, if the battery is packaged with the 
charger, then the charger is tested with only this battery. 
Alternatively, if the charger is not packaged with a battery, and is 
multi-port, multi-capacity, or multi-voltage in configuration, testing 
with a single battery, as recommended by interested parties, may not be 
a representative average use cycle and more than one test is needed to 
accurately assess the average use of that product. Although DOE's 
proposed approach can require up to three tests, which is potentially 
burdensome, it ensures that the test procedure fulfills this statutory 
requirement. See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). This approach should also enable 
DOE to account for all possible battery combinations that can be used 
in the charger rather than just the most typical configurations.
    In response to the preliminary analysis for energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers and external power supplies, DOE 
received related comments. Motorola commented that the CEC test 
procedure, upon which DOE based its test procedure, is not completely 
clear in defining how to select batteries for testing and that DOE 
should clearly define how to select batteries for testing. They added 
that DOE should define the terms ``lowest voltage'' and ``highest 
voltage.'' (Motorola, No. 50 at p. 2) \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The comments listed in this paragraph come from 
administrative record for the parallel rulemaking on energy 
conservation standards for battery chargers and external power 
supplies. The reference docket number is EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 (RIN: 
1904-AB57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned, DOE is incorporating its proposed approach for 
selecting batteries with which a technician should test a unit under 
test. Although the procedure does not define the terms ``highest 
voltage'' and ``lowest voltage,'' DOE believes that these terms clearly 
refer to the rated battery voltage because that is the pertinent 
information that manufacturers will provide when they package or 
recommend batteries to use with their devices. The other voltages that 
Motorola references in its comment (e.g. desired end-of-discharge 
battery voltage) are voltages that must be monitored after the testing 
has commenced and are not pertinent for selecting batteries to test. 
Accordingly, DOE is declining to define these particular terms at this 
time.

[[Page 31763]]

e. Non-Battery Charging Functions
    DOE proposed to implement a procedure for testing battery chargers 
with non-battery charging functions that would be consistent with the 
CEC approach. The CEC method requires the tester to turn off any user-
controlled functions and disconnect all auxiliary electrical 
connections to the battery charger. 75 FR 16958, 16969.
    Commenters had mixed views regarding non-battery charging 
functions. PG&E, Delta-Q, ASAP and SCE agreed with DOE's approach. PG&E 
stated that it agreed that the test procedure should not provide any 
energy allowances for battery chargers with extra functionality and 
agreed that any such functionality should be turned off during testing. 
(PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 15) Delta-Q agreed with DOE's 
approach for non-battery charging functions. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) 
ASAP, PG&E, and SCE stated that testing conducted for the development 
of the CEC test procedure found that turning off or disconnecting 
additional functions is the only approach that results in accurate 
measurements of standby power while providing a means to compare the 
energy consumption of products with and without additional 
functionality against each other. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 
at pp. 3-4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) Sony asked for clarification on how 
the additional functionality section in the proposal would pertain to 
video products (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2).
    In contrast, PTI commented that since battery charging is often 
secondary to the main function of the product, requiring the non-
battery charging functionality to be turned off during testing would be 
inconsistent with the general approach of trying to satisfy the user's 
requirements. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 119) In response, PG&E 
offered a solution to manufacturers and stated that manufacturers could 
design additional functionality into their products to ensure that the 
additional functionality will not consume enough power to prevent a 
battery charger from meeting any energy conservation standards that DOE 
might set. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 120)
    PTI suggested an alternative method to account for non-battery 
charging functions. It suggested conducting the battery charger test 
with and without the battery; the difference between the two 
measurements would be the energy used to charge the battery. Although 
this method excludes the standby component, PTI believed that the error 
associated with its exclusion is less significant than the error that 
would result from treating all of the products as if they were 
augmented battery chargers. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 123-
124)
    When developing its test procedure, DOE considered how to isolate 
the energy consumption of the battery charging circuitry in cases where 
the charger is embedded inside another product that provides additional 
functionality, such as video products and notebook computers. The test 
procedure must ensure that measurement of energy use for these types of 
products accounts for the energy used by this additional functionality. 
DOE believes that its proposed method is best suited to capture these 
measurements compared with the other methods suggested by commenters 
because it does not discount power consumption in other modes of 
operation, as the suggested approach by PTI would do.
    The method in this final rule is consistent with that of the 
generally accepted CEC test procedure, which applies equally to all 
products, including video products. By requiring that any switches 
controlling the additional functionality be turned off, and any 
auxiliary cables or connections be disconnected, this method provides 
manufacturers with a cue to shut down the additional functionality. As 
a result, only the battery charging portion of the battery charger is 
measured during testing. DOE notes that if a manufacturer does not 
equip its product with a switch to shut off non-battery charger 
functions, it may continue to do so. During testing, the energy 
consumption of these functions would still be calculated as part of a 
given product's total energy consumption. For this reason, DOE believes 
that it is likely that manufacturers of these types of products, in 
order to continue to maintain the added functionality, would be 
encouraged to minimize the energy consumed by these non-battery charger 
functions when designing their products.
f. Battery Chargers With Protective Circuitry
    DOE proposed to incorporate text from the CEC test procedure 
related to protective circuitry. 75 FR 16958, 16982. Incorporating this 
change would allow technicians to accurately measure the discharge 
energy of a battery without including energy from the protective 
circuitry. This measurement is important for the test procedure because 
it is equivalent to the useful, or non-lost, energy consumed during a 
charge cycle. The text was proposed for incorporation as part of DOE's 
overall adoption of the CEC test procedure. DOE did not propose to 
change the language of the CEC test procedure pertaining to protective 
circuitry in its NOPR. However, commenters provided feedback on the 
language in the CEC test procedure, stating that it contained an error.
    Commenters asserted that the language that DOE proposed to 
incorporate from the CEC-based test procedure contained an error that 
the CEC has not yet corrected. These commenters recommended that DOE 
adopt the language that the CEC had apparently intended to use in its 
procedure when testing battery chargers equipped with protective 
circuitry, rather than the language that CEC ultimately adopted.\15\ In 
the view of these commenters, the procedure should have stated that 
when protective circuitry is present, the technician should take the 
measurement at the leads of the battery cells after the protective 
circuitry rather than at the terminals of the test battery to ensure 
that the energy consumption of the protective circuitry is accurately 
measured. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 23, 181-184) ASAP, PG&E 
and SCE also recommended incorporating language that matched the 
language that CEC had intended to incorporate into its test procedure. 
(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 11; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at p. 11) 
PTI also agreed with the suggested revision. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 
2 at p. 184) ASAP, PG&E and SCE indicated that their collective belief 
is that CEC will adopt the corrected language in their next test 
procedure revision, although this revision has yet to occur. (ASAP, No. 
11 at p. 11; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at p. 11) PG&E and SCE 
are two of the primary consulting firms that helped develop the CEC 
test procedure. DOE received no comments opposing the revision 
recommended by ASAP, PG&E, and SCE. Additionally, commenters mentioned 
how the new methodology will increase safety in the test labs because 
technicians will not be required to dismantle battery packs and create 
connections between the battery and its protective circuitry. (ASAP, 
No. 11 at p.

[[Page 31764]]

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

    \15\ The language adopted in the CEC test procedure states: 
``Some products may include protective circuitry between the battery 
cells and the remainder of the device. In some cases, it is possible 
that the test battery cannot be discharged without activating 
protective control circuitry. If the manufacturer provides a 
description for accessing connections at the output of the 
protective circuitry, the energy measurements shall be made at the 
terminals of the test battery, so as not to include energy used by 
the protective control circuitry.'' See part 1, section II.F of CEC 
test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the new information presented by PG&E regarding the CEC 
test procedure and the noted safety benefits, DOE is altering its 
proposal to incorporate language that will require testing to occur at 
the output of the protective circuitry, rather than at the test battery 
terminals. As noted, the primary benefit of this approach is increased 
safety within the testing laboratory. The protective circuitry that is 
used in battery chargers is usually found in cases where a battery 
charger works with a lithium-ion chemistry battery. Due to their 
chemistry, these batteries can be unstable, which is why the protective 
circuitry is used. Consequently, DOE believes it is prudent that such 
circuitry should be used, and not dismantled, when measurements are 
taken for this test procedure.
g. Charge Capacity of Batteries With No Rating
    The battery charger test procedure currently requires the use of a 
battery capacity rating in order to determine the rate at which the 
discharge test is performed. This section describes how DOE decided to 
address batteries that have no rating. DOE proposed a method for 
determining the capacity of batteries with no ratings. That method was 
an iterative process requiring the use of an initial 0.5 amp (A) trial 
current (hereafter referred to as the 0.5 A test method). 75 FR 16970. 
The proposed process would require that the user iteratively adjust the 
initial 0.5 A, until he or she reaches a discharge current that could 
discharge that battery at a 0.2 C rate (``C rate'' refers to the amount 
of time in hours it would take to discharge the battery relative to its 
capacity), which corresponds to an approximately 5-hour discharge. DOE 
proposed that so long as the battery was discharged within 4.5 to 5.5 
hours, or an hour-long window of time, the result of the discharge test 
could be accepted as valid. 75 FR 16983. Commenters had mixed opinions 
on both the time frame acceptance window and the 0.5 A test method. 
These comments are addressed below.
Acceptance Window
    An acceptance window is the time frame in which a measurement of 
battery energy can be taken and considered appropriate for the UUT. It 
is critical for testing purposes because it ensures consistency and 
repeatability. Commenters generally urged DOE to decrease its 
acceptance window to a range of 4.5 to 5 hours, which would decrease 
the proposed acceptance window of 1-hour down to 30 minutes. (ASAP, No. 
11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) PG&E claimed 
that the proposed 1 hour window causes unacceptable errors and 
recommended a half-hour maximum window to decrease the likelihood of 
measurement errors. (PG&E, No. 2 at p. 20) It explained that a half-
hour time window for the discharge time of unrated batteries introduces 
a 2-percent error in the energy use measurement, while a 1-hour time 
window introduces an error of about 4 to 5 percent. However, a 15-
minute time window would, in its view, be preferable. (PG&E, No. 2 at 
p. 106; ASAP, No. 11 at p. 6; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 6; SCE, No. 13 at p. 
6) Manufacturers provided no comments regarding the proposed time 
window.
    Commenters agreed that a shorter acceptance window of 4.5 to 5 
hours is more appropriate than the 4- to 5-hour time window that DOE 
proposed. DOE believes that a 15-minute window would be unduly 
burdensome since it reduces the originally proposed time period by one-
fourth and will require more iterations to accomplish. DOE recognizes, 
however, the merit of using a shorter acceptance window and is 
adjusting this element in its procedure to cover a 30-minute window as 
suggested by the commenters. The tighter acceptance window will produce 
more precise results than what the proposed 1-hour window would have 
yielded and will not be unduly burdensome to perform.
Method for Determining the Capacity of Batteries With No Rating
    As mentioned above, DOE proposed using the 0.5 A test method to 
determine the capacity of batteries with no ratings as a method to 
achieve a current that would discharge the battery within the time 
acceptance window. Properly discharging a battery is necessary to 
ensure that the useful energy that was transferred from the battery 
charger to the battery is accurately measured and not misconstrued as 
lost energy. However, commenters were generally critical of DOE's 
proposal.
    ASAP, PG&E, and SCE strongly encouraged DOE to remove its proposed 
instructions for determining the discharge current for batteries 
without capacity labels. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; 
SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) They commented that for batteries with no rated 
capacity, the 0.5 A initial trial current is not always appropriate. 
Specifically, in their view, a current of 0.5 A works well primarily 
for batteries with capacities from about 0.5 Ah to 4 Ah. However, for 
products that cannot accept currents of 0.5 A (i.e. smaller batteries 
with lower capacities, such as those used with Bluetooth headset 
batteries) or that have large capacities (i.e. batteries with 
capacities in the range of 35 to 50 Ah, such as those used with 
electric scooters), a 0.5 A current would either not be possible or 
require an amount of time well in excess of the 5 hour maximum proposed 
by DOE--potentially, multiple days in duration. (PG&E, No. 2 at p. 20; 
ASAP, No. 11 at p. 7; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 7; SCE, No. 13 at p. 7) PTI 
also stated that it believed the 0.5 A starting current may be 
inappropriate and they believed that better results may come from trial 
and error as is suggested in the CEC test procedure. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. 
Tran., No. 2 at p. 102) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE added that DOE's proposed 
method does not always produce repeatable results, particularly when 
the results of the protocol for determining discharge time push the 
discharge time near the boundaries of the acceptance discharge time 
window. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 
4)
    ASAP, PG&E, and SCE proposed an alternative to the 0.5 A test 
method. Their method bases the initial discharge current on battery 
weight. (ASAP, No. 11 at pp.18-19; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 18-19; SCE, No. 
13 at pp. 18-19) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE suggested that if DOE considers it 
necessary to include instructions regarding the determination of the 
capacity of unrated batteries, DOE should consider adding the following 
steps:
    1. Pick an initial trial current which is deliberately too low. A 
reasonable step is to weigh or measure the battery and divide the 
number of cells to obtain grams per cell or cm\3\ per cell.
    2. Be sure the battery is fully charged and discharged at the 
current selected in step 1 for up to 2 hours. If the end-of-discharge 
voltage is reached before 2 hours, stop the discharge and go to step 5. 
If not, after 2 hours of discharge go to step 3.
    3. Double the current.
    4. Discharge the battery at the new current for up to 1 hour. If 
the end of discharge voltage is reached before 1 hour, stop the 
discharge and go to step 5. If not, after 1 hour of discharge, repeat 
steps 3 and 4.
    5. For the first discharge, compute the total charge capacity as 
the sum of the capacities of each step to discharge. For each step, the 
partial capacity is the product of the current and the time for which 
that current was drawn. (The total charge is defined as the integral of

[[Page 31765]]

the current over time.) Call this [value the] total charge capacity 
Q0.
    6. The last discharge current is called I0 and let 
Tm be the center of the acceptable time window, (perhaps 
4.75 hours). Calculate the next trial current as:

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

where ln() is the natural logarithm function.

    7. Discharge at this current I1 until the end-of-
discharge voltage is reached. Call the time required for this discharge 
T1. If T1 is within the acceptable window, use 
I1 as the discharge current. If not, continue with step 8.
    8. Compute the next trial current I2:

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

    b. Repeat step 7.

(ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 18-19; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 18-19;; SCE, No. 13 at 
pp. 18-19;)

    Adopting such a method would address the concern raised by Delta-Q, 
who requested that a provision be included for batteries with no rated 
capacity that allows (1) a larger starting current and (2) current 
steps to be estimated based on the battery size and weight. (Delta-Q, 
No. 5 at p. 2)
    ASAP, PG&E, and SCE added that the instructions in DOE's proposal, 
or any instructions generally, would not improve the repeatability or 
accuracy of the CEC method to select a discharge current, but would 
instead complicate the details of the test method and limit the 
flexibility of test labs and manufacturers to determine their own 
discharge rate by requiring that they obtain that rate using the 
specific DOE instructions. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; 
SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE urged DOE to not require steps 
to determine discharge current and instead to require only that the 
discharge current satisfy the time acceptance window. (ASAP, No. 11 at 
p. 5; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 5; SCE, No. 13 at p. 5)
    After carefully considering all of the comments, DOE is modifying 
the approach it proposed. In particular, DOE will incorporate a 
specific time acceptance window but not specify at this time the method 
for manufacturers to follow when discharging an unrated battery. By 
adopting this new approach, the measured efficiency of the battery 
charger will not be affected because technicians will have the freedom 
to rely on their expertise and will not be required to use a method 
that may be inappropriate for very large or very small batteries 
contained within a battery charger. DOE is declining to incorporate the 
suggested battery weight method offered by ASAP, PG&E, and SCE. In 
evaluating this method, which included conducting actual tests using 
this suggested approach, DOE found that it took many iterations--as 
many as eight in some cases--to obtain the proper discharge current. 
(Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) DOE believes that sufficiently 
accurate testing can occur because the test procedure requires that the 
discharge test be completed within a half an hour acceptance window. 
This requirement will ensure that technicians discharge their battery 
at a rate close to the 0.5 C-rate that is required when the charge 
capacity of the battery is known.
Battery Capacity Listings
    The final comment pertaining to unrated batteries related to the 
manner in which manufacturers communicate to end users and technicians 
the charge capacity specifications of a battery. DOE had proposed that 
the technician refer to a manufacturer's instructions to obtain a rated 
charge capacity. 75 FR 16982. Subsequently, AHAM commented that Web 
pages are an effective way to allow the manufacturer to communicate 
this information. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 126) DOE notes that its proposal 
already permits manufacturers to communicate the specifications in this 
manner because its definition of ``instructions or manufacturer's 
instructions'' includes Web page information. 75 FR 16958, 16980. 
Accordingly, in the absence of any objections to its proposal, DOE is 
adopting its proposed approach to refer technicians to manufacturer's 
instructions for information regarding battery capacity.
h. Battery Conditioning
    DOE proposed to require conditioning of the battery by performing 
two charges and two discharges, resulting in two conditioning cycles. 
Battery conditioning is the process by which the battery is cycled 
several times prior to testing in order to permit the battery to reach 
its specified capacity. DOE proposed these conditioning cycles to 
prepare the battery for testing while ending on a discharge of the 
battery. This step was necessary within the context of the proposed 
testing order. The proposal reversed the testing order from the one 
currently prescribed under the CEC testing provisions. 75 FR 16958, 
16971.
    Responding to this proposal, ASAP, PG&E, and SCE collectively 
recommended that DOE require three cycles of battery conditioning to 
maintain repeatability. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; 
SCE, No. 13 at p. 8) Although nickel-based batteries (e.g. NiCd or 
NiMH) can take between 5 and 100 cycles to ``develop their full 
capacity,'' these commenters pointed out that interested parties 
reached a consensus during the CEC rulemaking that 3 cycles is an 
acceptable compromise between accuracy and repeatability. (PG&E, Pub. 
Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 22; ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; 
SCE, No. 13 at p. 8) In golf cars and similarly-sized applications with 
large battery packs, Delta-Q noted that testing for several cycles 
could take several weeks if different manufacturers and models are 
considered. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2)
    The CEC test procedure requires that the batteries requiring 
conditioning be prepared by performing three charges and two 
discharges. DOE proposed to remove the final preparatory charge and 
replace it with a measured charge as would have been required by the 
proposed reversed testing order. However, because of the concerns 
raised by commenters in response to DOE's proposal, and the potential 
risk identified by the commenters that such an approach may decrease 
the accuracy of the test, DOE is dropping its proposed testing order 
and is adding a final preparatory charge as suggested by interested 
parties. Although PG&E, ASAP, and SCE commented that some nickel-based 
batteries need 5 to 100 cycles to develop their full capacity, they 
also stated that the three cycles specified in the CEC method was an 
acceptable compromise between accuracy and repeatability. Other 
commenters did not dispute the sufficiency of using three cycles.
    A battery must be stable during testing to ensure the repeatability 
of measurements related to capacity. Because the battery becomes more 
stable as additional charge-discharge cycles are performed, more than 
one cycle must be used. Adopting a requirement that provides for three 
cycles should be sufficient to ensure the stability of the battery 
because most battery chemistries will reach a relatively steady state 
at this point and three tests will not impose an excessive testing 
burden. Accordingly, DOE is adopting a three cycle approach to ensure 
battery stability is achieved during testing.
    Additionally, DOE is incorporating a conditioning section into the 
test procedure, as requested by ASAP, PG&E, SCE, and Sony. Commenters 
had noted that the proposed regulatory text did not include a section 
regarding battery conditioning. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 13 at 
p. 8; SCE, No. 12 at p. 8; Sony, No. 6 at p. 2). To address this issue, 
DOE is incorporating a

[[Page 31766]]

conditioning section that is consistent with the approach followed by 
the CEC. This new requirement will be inserted into 5.3 of amended 
appendix Y of subpart B of part 430 and will help ensure the 
completeness of the test procedure.
i. Rest Period
    DOE proposed to permit a rest period for both charged and 
discharged batteries from 1 to 24 hours. 75 FR 16958, 16984. A rest 
period is the period between the preparation of a battery and the 
battery discharge test. It also includes the period between the battery 
discharge test and the charge and maintenance mode tests. 75 FR 16958, 
16967. A rest period is required to enable the battery to return to the 
ambient temperature, which is a necessary prerequisite to ensure 
consistent testing conditions. This proposal differed from the rest 
period in the CEC test procedure, which prescribes a period of 1 to 4 
hours for charged batteries and 1 to 24 hours for discharged batteries. 
See III.C and III.E of part 1 of the CEC test procedure.
    ASAP, PG&E, and SCE asserted that the proposed rest period ``is 
inconsistent with the CEC-adopted test procedure as well as industry 
standards.'' (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 14; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 14; SCE, No. 13 
at p. 14) The interested parties further commented that ``regardless of 
the test order, the rest periods should be 1 to 4 hours for charged 
batteries and 1 to 24 hours for discharged batteries.'' The shorter 
rest period for charged batteries would minimize the self-discharge 
effect that occurs in NiCd and NiMH batteries. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 14; 
PG&E, No. 12 at p. 14; SCE, No. 13 at p. 14)
    In this final rule, DOE is adopting the language from the CEC test 
procedure, in part to maintain consistency with industry testing 
protocols. Providing a shorter rest period for charged batteries also 
ensures that certain types of batteries (such as the NiCd and NiMH 
batteries discussed above) do not self-discharge, making the test 
results more consistent. Incorporating a 1 to 4 hour rest period for 
charged batteries will help harmonize the DOE test procedure with these 
widely accepted industry standards, as well as minimize the possibility 
of self-discharging of batteries with NiCd or NiMH chemistries.
    Additionally, in its NOPR, DOE also proposed that ``for batteries 
with flooded cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less than 33 
degrees Celsius before charging.'' 75 FR 16958, 16984. DOE had intended 
to adopt the language from the CEC test procedure, which specifies an 
under 30 degree Celsius requirement. No comments were received 
regarding this issue. In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the 
corrected temperature requirement, which is consistent with that 
retained in the CEC test procedure. See part 1, sections II.C and II.E 
of the CEC test procedure.
5. Test Measurement
a. Removing Inactive Mode Energy Consumption Test Apparatus and 
Measurement
    DOE proposed removing its inactive mode energy consumption test. 75 
FR 16958, 16970. The inactive mode energy consumption measurement in 
section 4(a) of appendix Y prior to today's final rule prescribed a 
method for calculating a nonactive energy ratio. Both industry and non-
industry commenters responded to this proposed change.
    PG&E, Delta-Q and AHAM supported DOE's proposal to drop its 
inactive mode procedure and to replace it with one that measures active 
mode energy consumption. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 51; AHAM, 
Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 47; Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) However, PTI 
did not agree with removing the nonactive mode metric because, in its 
view, the removal of this metric would remove an aggregate measure of 
the energy use of the product in a variety of modes. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 
1) Commenters also raised concerns related to usage profiles, noting in 
particular that they are necessary to determine how a product is truly 
used and what energy savings potential actually exists. (AHAM, Pub. 
Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 48, PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 49) 
(Usage profiles are assumptions, based on a variety of sources, 
including manufacturers, surveys, and other publicly available data, 
about the amount of time products spend in each mode of operation. 
These assumptions represent the manner and frequency with which a 
product is used. Usage profiles are valuable in that they help show how 
a product is used, which can be helpful in determining its energy 
consumption during typical consumer usage in all modes of operation.)
    Performing the inactive mode test procedure requires integrating 
the input power of the battery charger in maintenance mode and no 
battery mode. That value is divided by the battery energy measured 
during discharge, resulting in a nonactive energy ratio. However, 
today's final rule incorporates an active mode test, which will, 
collectively, with the other portions of the amended test procedure, 
result in a battery charger test procedure that measures battery 
charger energy in all four modes (i.e., active, maintenance, standby, 
and off). Consequently, there is no need for the continued use of a 
nonactive mode metric since the energy that was previously captured by 
this metric will be captured by these other modes. As for concerns 
about aggregation and usage profiles, DOE notes that it will address 
these issues in greater detail in the related standards rulemaking that 
is currently underway. See 75 FR 56021 (Sept. 15, 2010).
b. Charge Test Duration
    Charge test duration issues involved two primary areas. First, 
commenters provided feedback on DOE's proposal to shorten the procedure 
for certain products. Second, commenters also provided feedback on 
DOE's proposal to have indicators to help provide some means for a 
tester to determine the appropriate duration of a test. These issues 
are discussed in greater detail below.
Shortened Test Procedure
    In the NOPR, DOE considered permitting a shortened test procedure 
for those products that stabilized (i.e. reached steady-state in 
maintenance mode) in less than 24 hours. This approach would have 
modified the procedure contained in the CEC test procedure. See part 1, 
section II.E of the CEC test procedure. Shortening the active mode test 
by terminating it once the charger has entered steady state operation 
could result in decreased testing time and decreased burden on 
manufacturers. DOE proposed this approach to reduce the testing burden 
faced by at least some manufacturers from the 24-hour charge test. 75 
FR 16958, 16970.
    PG&E stated that the 24-hour test is not more burdensome than the 
proposed shortened test. Under the longer 24-hour test, technicians 
would be able to leave the test setup over night and begin a new test 
the next day, which is likely to be the same even if the test is 
shortened. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 167-168) PTI commented 
that while it may be convenient for DOE to offer a shortened test 
procedure, the full test procedure will need to be used for 
verification purposes. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 162) ASAP, 
PG&E, and SCE argued that a 24-hour active and maintenance mode test is 
the shortest permissible period that should be employed because it will 
allow the technician to see additional shifts in battery charger 
behavior that may have otherwise been missed because the charger 
entered a steady-state that was not necessarily maintenance mode early 
on during the test period. (ASAP, No. 11

[[Page 31767]]

at p. 7; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 7; SCE, No. 13 at p. 7)
    Alternatively, some interested parties supported the shortened test 
method approach. AHAM argued that the shortened test is acceptable if 
the test record shows that it was used, and manufacturers understand 
that the 24-hour test will be used for verification. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 
Tran., No. 2 at pp. 169-170) AHAM further stated that if a manufacturer 
knows that the shortened test procedure will accurately test their 
product, it should be able to use it so long as the manufacturer 
clearly states in the test record that it was used. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 
Tran., No. 2 at pp. 164-165) For manufacturers with products that have 
short charge times, the shortened test can provide value by enabling a 
tester to complete multiple testing cycles within a normal testing day. 
(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 168-169) AHAM noted that if the 
shortened test procedure yields the same results as the 24-hour test 
procedure, manufacturers should be permitted to use that procedure so 
long as the 24-hour test procedure will be used for verification 
purposes. (AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 6-7) AHAM emphasized that it is crucial 
that the test procedures be accurate, and that there be no opportunity 
for a certifying laboratory to conduct a test one way, and a verifying 
laboratory to conduct it a different way, with the two laboratories 
obtaining different results. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 26) 
Delta-Q, in general, agreed with the proposed shortened test procedure. 
It noted that more advanced chargers may be programmed to pass the 
shortened test by inhibiting any energy-consuming modes for the 
duration of the test. (Delta-Q, No. 11 at p. 2). Sony opposed the 24-
hour charge test duration, stating that it is neither cost effective 
nor efficient. It suggested adding the following statement: ``If the 
battery charger has an indicator to show that the battery is fully 
charged, [the discharge] test can begin as soon as the indicator shows 
that the battery is fully charged.'' Alternatively, Sony recommended 
that DOE shorten the charge test duration from 24 hours to 12 hours. 
(Sony, No. 6 at p. 2)
    DOE is dropping its initial proposal for a shortened test period.
    As indicated by the submitted comments, manufacturers were wary of 
the proposal since it could cause issues with verification testing of 
products. In particular, not all battery chargers behave the same way 
in maintenance mode. Some chargers may ``wake up'' and have periods of 
high input current to top off the battery's charge level if the battery 
has self-discharged after sitting without being used for an extended 
period of time. Measuring the energy consumption of products employing 
this type of feature under these conditions could miss these ``wake 
up'' periods if a shortened test duration is used. When DOE conducted 
testing according to the shortened test procedure, it also found that 
it can be difficult to determine when the product reaches steady state, 
which serves as the point at which the test should end. (Battery 
Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) Furthermore, adopting the shortened test 
procedure could lead to complications due to the necessity of 
reconciling two differing measurement results. Therefore, to ensure 
there are no potential discrepancies or confusion, and in light of the 
reliability and accuracy of a test with a longer duration, DOE is 
declining to incorporate a shortened test procedure in this final rule.
Indicators
    DOE proposed to have indicators, if present, to serve as a means to 
help determine the length of the charge test. DOE proposed this 
approach because it is consistent with the CEC test procedure (see 
section II.E of part 1 of the CEC test procedure) and provides a clear 
means for technicians to determine when the battery has been fully 
charged. In using this approach, DOE proposed that if the indicator 
shows that the battery is fully charged after 19 hours of charging, the 
test shall terminate once 24 hours have elapsed. Conversely, if the 
full-charge indicator does not indicate that a full charge has been 
reached after 19 hours of charging, the test shall continue up until 5 
hours after the indicator has illuminated or otherwise indicates that 
the battery has been fully charged. 75 FR 16958, 16983.
    ASAP, PG&E, and SCE commented that charger indicator lights are not 
reliable and consistent sources of information about the state of 
charge of the battery. They added, though, that these lights are useful 
for general guidance on the state of charge for the purpose of 
determining a charger's active mode test length. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 
13; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at p. 13) Despite their 
collective objection to DOE's proposed approach, these interested 
parties did not suggest changing the proposed test duration selection 
process. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 13; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at 
p. 13)
    After considering these comments, DOE is adopting its proposed 
approach to permit the use of indicators to help determine a battery's 
state of charge. DOE notes that a testing technician is not restricted 
to the use of indicator lights, but may rely on any indicator that is a 
part of the UUT that would help in determining a battery's state of 
charge. DOE believes that indicators are sufficiently informative to 
determine the charge test duration of a battery because, as commenters 
conceded, they are useful in providing information regarding the 
general state of a battery's charge. Because the charge and maintenance 
mode test will not be shortened, DOE believes that the information 
conveyed by an indicator about the general state of a battery's charge 
is all that is necessary for the purposes of testing. Furthermore, the 
vast majority of battery chargers currently available on the market 
will likely finish charging well before the 19 hour mark that must be 
met in order to complete the test within 24 hours. (Battery Charger 
Test Data, No. 18.3) Therefore, up-to-the-minute precision regarding 
when the battery has reached its full charge state is not necessary for 
the vast majority of products. This change will not only provide 
testers with a straight-forward guide when determining a battery's 
state of charge, but will also help to ensure consistency with the 
established CEC test procedure that the industry is already following.
c. Testing Order
    The CEC test procedure requires that the test be conducted by 
performing first a preparatory discharge followed by a measured charge 
and then a measured discharge. See section III of part 1 of the CEC 
test procedure. DOE proposed to reverse this testing order by requiring 
a preparatory charge first, followed by a measured discharge and 
measured charge. 75 FR 16971. As explained below, interested parties 
generally opposed this proposed approach.
    PG&E stated that if DOE adopts its proposal to reverse the CEC 
testing order, the procedure will not accurately measure the energy 
consumption of battery chargers that take longer than 24 hours to 
charge. If the battery is discharged completely during the 5 hour 
discharge test, and then is not fully charged within 24 hours, the test 
does not account for a complete ``round-trip'' (i.e., a complete 
charge-discharge or discharge-charge cycle). PG&E recommended that DOE 
either prove a round-trip has been accomplished under its proposed 
approach or adopt the CEC method. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 
16-18; PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 135-136)
    PG&E further stated that reversing the testing order creates a 
loophole that can encourage manufacturers to make slow charging 
products that will appear more

[[Page 31768]]

efficient than they actually are since the reversed testing order will 
account for a full discharge but only a partial charge for these 
products. PG&E encouraged DOE to ensure that its final procedure 
includes a valid method to measure the energy consumption of battery 
chargers that take longer than 24 hours to charge. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. 
Tran., No. 2 at pp. 140-141; PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 143-
144). ASAP objected to reversing the charge/discharge order detailed in 
the CEC procedure. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, 
No. 13 at p. 8) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE added that the reversed testing 
order was found to give inaccurate and inconsistent results for a 
significant number of products that were tested. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; 
PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, No. 13 at p. 8) In their view, the reversed 
testing order does not accurately test batteries that take longer than 
24 hours to charge, which includes batteries used with emergency 
systems (e.g. computer uninterruptible power supplies, security 
systems, exit lighting, and other power backup applications), small 
automotive type chargers, and many universal chargers for C-size of D-
size batteries. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, No. 
13 at p. 8) These commenters also contended that retaining the proposed 
reversed CEC testing order may create an incentive for manufacturers to 
redesign their products to charge for longer periods of time rather 
than making the product more efficient, since the test procedure will 
record a full discharge, and only a partial charge. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 
9; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 9; SCE, No. 13 at p. 9) By doing so, 
manufacturers could inflate the efficiency of their products and 
effectively circumvent any energy conservation standards that DOE may 
establish.
    Similarly, AHAM commented that if reversing the testing cycle 
causes errors with accuracy, the Department should consider 
alternatives. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 139) However, AHAM 
also commented that DOE's proposal to reverse the CEC testing order 
will result in some time savings without any loss of accuracy. (AHAM, 
No. 10 at p. 5) Delta-Q expressed support for incorporating a reversed 
order from the CEC procedure and noted that it follows this reversed-
order approach when conducting all battery cycle test measurements. 
(Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2).
    Euro-Pro made an alternative suggestion, requesting that DOE 
consider modifying its proposal to permit the tester to monitor the 
battery voltage either during charging or at the end of the charge, and 
terminate the test when the battery is discharged, regardless of the 
time needed for a complete discharge to occur. (Euro-Pro, Pub. Mtg. 
Tran., No. 2 at pp. 142-143)
    Sony sought clarification on whether the proposed reversing of the 
CEC test procedure would impact the testing duration or burden. (Sony, 
No. 6 at p. 2)
    DOE made its proposal to allow the preparatory step to be a charge 
rather than a discharge. By permitting this step, preparation could be 
conducted within the UUT, rather than using a battery analyzer, which 
would in turn reduce the amount of required testing equipment time that 
a manufacturer would need to allocate while testing. DOE had believed 
that following this approach would reduce the overall testing burden 
without impacting accuracy. 75 FR 16958, 16971.
    However, after considering the comments submitted on this issue, 
DOE recognizes the merits of the concerns expressed by interested 
parties that the proposed test procedure may not capture a full round-
trip for some battery chargers. Completing a full round trip is 
critical to accurately measuring the energy consumption of a battery 
charger because it prevents the possibility of obtaining results that 
suggest that more energy came out of the battery then went into the 
battery, a physical impossibility with a full charge and discharge. As 
mentioned above, commenters indicated that this problem may be 
prevalent with numerous products such as an uninterruptible power 
supply or universal battery charger that takes longer than 24 hours to 
charge its battery. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, 
No. 13 at p. 8) Furthermore, the potential measurement error caused by 
the proposed change could be exploited by some manufacturers as a 
loophole, which could occur if the 5-hour discharge test recovered all 
energy from the battery and the subsequent charge test captured only 
the energy flowing into the battery during the first 24 hours. Under 
this scenario, the test would capture only a portion of the energy 
consumed by the charger. Finally, DOE believes that preserving the 
proposed testing order while adding steps to ensure that a battery is 
not overcharged, like the steps suggested by Euro-Pro, would increase 
test procedure complexity and burden since it would require a 
technician to continuously monitor the battery for 24 hours or longer 
to determine when the battery has reached a fully charged state. For 
these reasons, DOE is modifying the approach presented in its proposal 
and adopting the order prescribed in the CEC test procedure--i.e. 
preparatory discharge, measured charge, measured discharge.
d. End-of-Discharge Voltages
    DOE proposed end-of-discharge voltages for both popular and novel 
battery chemistries. 75 FR 16958, 16984. In its notice, DOE proposed 
that the test procedure incorporate an end-of-discharge voltage of 2.5 
volts per battery cell. DOE made this proposal in order to provide 
guidance on the recommended voltage to stop the discharging process to 
avoid damaging the battery. Responses to this aspect of the proposal 
were mixed.
    ASAP, PG&E and SCE offered support for ``DOE's effort to include 
battery charger systems with novel chemistries in the test procedure,'' 
as well as ``DOE's effort to identify batteries that are in the lab now 
and might become commercialized over the coming years.'' (ASAP, No. 11 
at p. 9; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 9; SCE, No. 13 at p. 9)
    On the other hand, AHAM commented that the proposed end-of-
discharge voltages were not consistent with manufacturer 
specifications, noting in particular that most lithium ion battery 
manufacturers do not recommend discharging below 3.0 volts per cell. 
(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 147) AHAM further stated that some 
manufacturers do not design the battery with protective circuitry and 
discharging to too low of a level will damage the battery. (AHAM, Pub. 
Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 151) Euro-Pro agreed with AHAM and noted that 
some products stop operating after a certain amount of time and do not 
reach the end-of-discharge voltage level. (Euro-Pro, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 
No. 2 at p. 150) PTI's main concern was that if the test is terminated 
at a predetermined voltage, even if that predetermined voltage is set 
by surrounding circuitry, as long as the battery is returned back to 
that same voltage, this method would complete a round trip. (PTI, Pub. 
Mtg. Tran., No. 2 sheet at p. 181)
    On the issue of novel battery chemistries, commenters stated that 
because the test procedure would likely be reviewed on a seven-year 
cycle, DOE should have an approach to address those battery cells that 
had not been previously contemplated. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at 
p. 152) PTI urged DOE to consider accepting ``cell manufacturer 
published values for recommended cutoff voltages'' and ``permitting 
future chemistries to be considered under the test procedure without 
having to revise it.'' (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 154). AHAM 
also commented that the proposed end-of-discharge voltages only apply 
to units

[[Page 31769]]

without electronic cycle termination and that new battery chemistries 
were not included as part of the end-of-discharge table. AHAM asserted 
that DOE's proposed end-of-discharge voltage table should only be used 
as a guide and that testing should use the manufacturer's stated end-
of-discharge values, which usually stem from recommendations received 
from the battery manufacturer. Alternatively, AHAM also suggested that 
relevant IEC cell standards could be used as a reference. For example, 
it asserted that DOE should allow manufacturers to place battery 
capacity information on their Web sites, specification sheets, or 
instructions shipped with the product. In AHAM's view, this flexibility 
would help better handle situations where new battery chemistries are 
introduced and appropriate end-of-discharge voltages are not known, 
without which, damage could be done to the battery during testing. 
(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 6; AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 156)
    In today's final rule, DOE is opting to maintain its end-of-
discharge voltage table as proposed in the NOPR. 75 FR 16984. DOE 
believes that it is prudent to have a consistent cut-off voltage across 
chemistries because this voltage will affect the amount of energy that 
is measured coming out of the battery. This energy represents a 
fundamental measurement and key output of the test procedure. Given the 
outlined approach, deferring to a manufacturer's stated end-of-
discharge values that are provided on an individual product basis may 
not provide this type of consistency. Accordingly, today's final rule 
adopts the end of discharge voltages from the CEC test procedure, since 
they are widely accepted and already in use by the industry. In 
addition to the chemistries listed in the CEC table, DOE specified end-
of-discharge voltages for two novel chemistries (Nanophosphate Lithium 
Ion and Silver Zinc). DOE is aware of the existence of these particular 
chemistries and their potential for more widespread use. DOE is 
including these two chemistries to ensure that its test procedure can 
adequately address products that employ batteries that rely on these 
chemistries.
    With respect to discharging, AHAM and Euro-Pro commented that 
manufacturers often do not discharge their products to the IEC 
specified end-of-discharge voltage, which were used in the proposed 
test procedure. AHAM further commented that the test procedure should 
allow manufacturers to specify their own end-of discharge voltages 
during testing.
    DOE believes that adopting this approach would lead to inconsistent 
testing between similar batteries, since manufacturers will be more 
likely to specify different voltages of batteries that are of similar 
make and chemistry. Because of the potential problems that could result 
from having inconsistent testing methods between similar batteries, 
such as measuring vastly different amounts of energy coming from 
similar batteries, DOE is declining to adopt the particular measures 
suggested by AHAM.
    DOE notes, however, that some batteries, particularly those using 
the more unstable lithium-ion chemistry (compared to nickel-based 
batteries), should not be discharged past a certain voltage for safety 
reasons. (Discharging of these types of batteries beyond a certain 
point may result in the risk of fire.) For most products using these 
types of batteries, manufacturers will provide protection circuitry 
within the lithium-ion battery pack that will stop the discharge at a 
safe voltage, regardless of the end-of-discharge voltage, to ensure a 
safe discharge. DOE is aware that since these mechanisms are bypassed 
during the test procedure, an overly low end-of-discharge voltage could 
present a safety risk in this case.
    AHAM commented that most manufacturers do not recommend discharging 
lithium batteries below 3.0 V. It identified Sony and Black & Decker as 
examples of manufacturers who make this recommendation. However, DOE 
has consulted with subject matter experts regarding this issue who 
believe that lithium-ion batteries will not experience safety issues if 
discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage of 2.5 V. (Comment 
pertaining to batteries being used as a part of the test equipment to 
test a charger, No. 18.1) While conducting tests on lithium-ion 
batteries over the years, including the tests done for the Department, 
DOE's subject matter expert has not experienced any safety issues when 
discharging lithium-ion batteries to 2.5 V. (Battery Charger Test Data, 
No. 18.3) Additionally, AHAM did not provide any data to support its 
claim. Consequently, DOE will adopt the 2.5 V end-of-discharge voltage, 
consistent with that proposed in its NOPR, in this final rule. This 
end-of-discharge voltage is accepted in industry and should not create 
any appreciable testing burden for manufacturers.
e. E24 Measurement
    DOE proposed measuring only the energy consumed during the first 24 
hours of charging, even if the test lasts longer than 24 hours. 75 FR 
16958, 16984. DOE proposed this approach because it believed that most 
products could be charged within the 24-hour time period, and for those 
products that took longer to charge, most of the energy consumption 
would likely have been accounted for within the first 24 hours. 
However, most commenters opposed this approach. PG&E commented that the 
proposal only accounts for the energy used during the first 24 hours of 
charging, which does not capture a full round-trip for batteries with 
charge times that exceed 24 hours. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 
22; PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 144) Instead, PG&E strongly 
urged DOE to modify its test procedure to be consistent with the CEC 
procedure by including (1) total charger input energy (Charge and 
Maintenance Energy) accumulated over the entire duration of the test, 
reported in watt-hours (Wh) and (2) total time duration of the charging 
test (at least 24 hours).'' (ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 12-13; PG&E, No. 12 at 
pp. 12-13; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 12-13) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE supported this 
view by commenting that batteries that take longer than 24 hours to 
charge will not reach a fully charged state during the 24-hour charge 
test, which will result in energy use measurements that significantly 
underestimate the energy required to charge the battery and can result 
in inflated efficiency levels exceeding 100 percent. (ASAP, No. 11 at 
p. 9; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 9; SCE, No. 13 at p. 9)
    AHAM supported the proposed E24 measurement. (AHAM, No. 
10 at p. 5) No other comments were received on this issue.
    DOE's proposed test method would have required measuring a full 
discharge and the energy consumed during the first 24 hours of the 
charge. As interested parties noted, if the test procedure only 
accounts for the energy to charge the battery over the first 24 hours, 
it would not capture a full ``round-trip'' for those battery chargers 
taking longer than 24 hours to charge.
    Even though the most common products that require more than 24 
hours to charge do not account for a large portion of shipments, these 
products will not be accurately tested and may result in reporting 
efficiencies greater than 100 percent if the measurement period is only 
24 hours. While DOE acknowledges that varying the test duration may 
create a less than uniform approach as well as a potentially increased 
testing burden, the need to obtain accurate results is critical to 
ensure the viability of not only the procedure that DOE adopts for all 
manufacturers to use, but also to help ensure the integrity of whatever 
energy

[[Page 31770]]

conservation standards that DOE may set for these products. Therefore, 
to make certain that accurate results are obtained, DOE is modifying 
its proposal by requiring that the full round-trip be accounted during 
testing and that the measurements are taken over the entire duration of 
the charge test, even if that time period exceeds 24 hours.

C. Review of Battery Charger and External Power Supply Standby and Off 
Mode Test Procedures

1. Battery Charger Test Procedure Off Mode Definition
    DOE sought comments on the existing standby and off mode test 
procedures for battery chargers. 75 FR 16958, 16962. Section 2.k. of 
appendix Y defines off mode as: ``The condition, applicable only to 
units with manual on-off switches, in which the battery charger is (1) 
connected to the main electricity supply; (2) is not connected to the 
battery; and (3) all manual on-off switches are turned off.''
    DOE received comments with regard to this proposed definition and 
how it applies to integral batteries in the off mode test procedure. 
PG&E suggested that the off-mode definition should be rewritten to 
allow off mode to be measured even if the battery is internal and 
cannot be removed. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 23-24) PG&E 
added that a large number of battery chargers can have an off mode even 
if the battery is still connected, noting that battery chargers can be 
equipped with an on/off switch. ASAP, PG&E, and SCE cited a computer 
UPS as an example of a such charger in which the battery is not usually 
removed, but is equipped with an on-off switch. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 13; 
PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at p. 13) PG&E added that the off 
mode of these types of chargers should be tested even if the battery 
cannot be disconnected. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 188) 
Therefore, ASAP, PG&E, and SCE all recommended that off mode be tested 
for all battery chargers with an on-off switch. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 13; 
PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at p. 13).
    Section 310 of EISA 2007 defined ``off mode'' as ``the condition in 
which an energy-using product-(I) is connected to a main power source; 
and (II) is not providing any standby or active mode function.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6295 (gg)(1)(A)(ii)) For the purposes of this test procedure, 
the ``energy-using product'' is the battery charger itself and not the 
end-use product into which that battery charger is integrated. This 
distinction is important to note because on-off switches are frequently 
used for the end-use product and not the battery charger. Therefore, to 
be completely unambiguous and ensure that only off mode power for the 
battery charger. and not the end-use product, is being measured, DOE 
believes it is necessary that the battery must be detachable from the 
end-use product. By removing the battery from the battery charger, the 
technician can be certain that any power consumed by the battery 
charger is not attributable to any standby or active mode function that 
the battery charger may have otherwise still been providing despite 
turning off the end-use product. Consequently, DOE is declining to 
expand its definition of off mode to encompass products with non-
detachable batteries.
2. Test Duration
    DOE proposed to shorten the current warm-up period from one hour to 
30 minutes used in the standby and off mode test procedures. Compare 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, sec. (c)(1) with 75 FR 16985 
(proposed sections 5.11 and 5.12). Additionally, DOE proposed to have 
this 30-minute warm-up period followed by a 10-minute measurement 
period. DOE proposed this approach, in part, to help harmonize DOE's 
standby and off mode measurement procedures with sections IV.B and IV.C 
in part 1 of the CEC test procedure and to reduce testing burden while 
maintaining accuracy. 75 FR 16958, 16962.
    Commenters had varying opinions on the issue. Delta-Q ``mildly 
agreed'' with the proposed changes to standby and off mode duration and 
believed that there would be no significant impact from the proposed 
change. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) Alternatively, AHAM suggested that the 
warm-up period should last an hour to maintain the accuracy of the 
data. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7)
    As stated in the NOPR, abbreviating the measurement period from 1 
hour to 10 minutes will not affect the accuracy of the test because the 
amended test procedures would retain a 30-minute warm up period. 
Variations in component efficiency due to temperature are the most 
common reason for changes in battery charger energy consumption in 
standby and off modes, and the 30-minute warm-up period will remain 
sufficient to permit the input power of most battery chargers to 
stabilize. 75 FR 16958, 16962. DOE recognizes that further 
instabilities (pulses) in energy consumption in standby and off modes 
may be caused by periodic operation of certain battery charger 
functions, as when a battery charger occasionally checks its output for 
the presence of the battery. In general, there is always a potential 
for a time-limited test procedure to fail to capture a behavior 
occurring at an arbitrary time. DOE has conducted numerous tests to 
analyze this issue and has not encountered any cases where the product 
does not stabilize within the allotted 30-minute time period. (Battery 
Charger Standby Tests, No. 18.2) Accordingly, DOE believes that the 30-
minute warm-up period is sufficient for testing battery chargers and is 
adopting its proposed approach in today's final rule.

D. Review of the Single-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure

1. External Power Supplies That Communicate With Their Loads
    DOE requested comments on testing external power supplies that 
communicate with their loads, specifically with regard to allowing 
manufacturers to supply test jigs (i.e., physical connection adapters 
to permit testers to help identify which electrical leads to use when 
taking a measurement) to properly measure these products. 75 FR 16973 
and 16979. ASAP, PG&E, and SCE recommended that DOE create a standard 
test jig for external power supplies that communicate with their loads 
via USB protocol and that manufacturers supply test jigs for non-
standard protocols. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 14; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 14; SCE, 
No. 13 at p. 14) They also recommended that for proprietary or custom 
communication protocols, manufacturers should submit an external power 
supply test jig so that the product can be tested and will not be 
exempt from the standard because it cannot be tested. In their view, if 
the jig is not supplied, the efficiency value should be zero, and the 
external power supply would not meet the standard. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 
14; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 14; SCE, No. 13 at p. 14). Alternatively, Sony 
recommended excluding USBs from the external power supply test 
procedure because including them would result in additional burden and 
increased testing costs to manufacturers. (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2).
    DOE notes that to the extent that a particular product cannot be 
tested under the prescribed procedure, a manufacturer would be able to 
seek a test procedure waiver in order to be able to test and rate that 
product. See 10 CFR 430.27. Without such a rating, a manufacturer would 
be unable to sell that product in the United States. 42 U.S.C. 
6302(a)(5). With respect to the final rule DOE is adopting today, the 
test procedure will permit manufacturers to supply test jigs that

[[Page 31771]]

can accurately measure the energy consumption of their external power 
supplies. It is DOE's understanding that these jigs are straightforward 
adapters that would allow technicians to determine which output 
connectors from the external power supply are providing output power. 
These jigs would also allow the technician to simulate normal operating 
conditions if any communication with the device is necessary. DOE does 
not believe that the allowance of such devices will lead to gaming of 
the test procedure because the jig should be a simple, non-powered 
device. This approach is preferable to the approach suggested by Sony 
because it avoids the exclusion of products from coverage. This 
approach will also ensure that DOE obtains accurate and consistent test 
results and allows products to be tested that otherwise might have 
required waivers.
2. External Power Supplies With Output Current Limiting
    DOE sought comment regarding the treatment of external power 
supplies with an output current limiting capability. ``Output current 
limiting'' is a mode of operation where an external power supply 
significantly lowers its output voltage once an internal output limit 
has been exceeded. These external power supplies cannot be loaded at 
100 percent of rated nameplate output current. 75 FR 16958, 16962.
    PTI offered two recommendations on this issue. First, it 
recommended that DOE require that the measurement be made and recorded 
at a 100 percent load. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 196) Second, 
PTI recommended that if the external power supply cannot be loaded at 
the 100 percent load point then it should not be tested at that load 
point. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 204) PTI did not offer an 
appropriate load point under that scenario. ASAP, PG&E and SCE 
recommended that DOE alter its proposal and require testing of external 
power supplies with lower than expected output current limiting levels 
at three standard load points (25, 50, and 75 percent) and include an 
option to modify the 100 percent load point to 95 percent. These 
commenters believe that the 95 percent option will account for some 
manufacturer variation that might exist because of current limiting 
circuitry that is occasionally present in external power supplies to 
prevent a short circuit. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 15; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 15; 
SCE, No. 13 at p. 15)
    SAP, PG&E and SCE recommended that the following approach should be 
used (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 15; SCE, No. 13 at p. 15; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 
15):
    (1) After the warm-up, load the product at 100 percent of rated 
output current.
    (2) If the external power supply will not supply 100 percent of the 
nameplate output current (assumed because of the current limiting 
function), then the external power supply shall be tested at 95 percent 
rated output current.
    (3) If the external power supply supplies current at 95 percent 
rated output current, then the efficiency at the 100 percent loading 
point shall be recorded as the efficiency at the 95 percent loading 
point to permit some variation.
    (4) If the external power supply will not supply 100 percent or 95 
percent of the rated output current, then the efficiency measured at 
100 percent shall be recorded as 0.
    (5) Move on to other loading points (75, 50, and 25) in the 
procedure. If the external power supply cannot supply current at the 
other loading points, they should all be marked 0.
    PTI commented that external power supplies that do not reach 100 
percent load are likely designed to ensure that they are not affected 
by the early cutoff of the wall adapter. They likely only make 
excursions at those current levels on a transitory basis. (PTI, Pub. 
Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 203) PTI added that it is possible that wall 
adapters that are unable to meet 100 percent of nameplate output power 
had charge control and were not external power supplies. (PTI, Pub. 
Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at. 199) Alternatively, AHAM informed DOE that some 
external power supplies will not reach 100 percent because the 
manufacturer rates them higher to reach a maximum value for temperature 
purposes such that the product will never reach the value under the 
worst situations. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 201) AHAM further 
commented that nameplate ratings are not used for energy efficiency 
purposes, but for safety certification. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 
at pp. 200-201)
    If an external power supply cannot sustain output current at 100 
percent load during testing, then it will not operate at 100 percent 
load with its associated application. Incorporating the 100 percent 
loading point into the metric for these units would be inconsistent 
with how they are used in consumer environments. Therefore, DOE is not 
requiring an efficiency measurement at that loading point as part of 
the average efficiency metric. Instead, the average efficiency of 
products that cannot maintain 100 percent output load will be the 
average of the efficiencies at 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent 
of full load only. Appropriate changes to section 4(a)(i) of appendix Z 
to subpart B of part 430 have been made for today's final rule.
3. High-Power External Power Supplies
    As mentioned above, the current external power supply test 
procedure in appendix Z requires the nameplate output current to be 
used to calculate the loading points for efficiency measurements. See 
section 4(a)(i) of Appendix Z to subpart B of part 430 (referencing 
CEC's ``Test Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Single-
Voltage External Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power supplies''). DOE sought comments 
on what should be done in those instances where a manufacturer lists 
more than one maximum output power for a given high-power external 
power supply. In particular, DOE sought comment on whether it should 
modify the definition of ``output power'' to specify that the 
continuous output current should be used when more than one maximum 
output is provided.
    ASAP, PG&E, and SCE recommended that DOE test both intermittent and 
continuous load conditions for high power external power supplies. They 
commented that when ham radios (amateur wireless radios) are 
transmitting, the higher (intermittent) rating is more applicable, and 
when the radio is receiving, the lower (continuous) rating is more 
applicable. They believe that the intermittent portion of the external 
power supply may be used from 20 percent to 50 percent of the time, 
which, in their view, constitutes a significant portion of operating 
time. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 16; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 16; SCE, No. 13 at p. 
16)
    DOE notes that testing a high-power external power supply at its 
advertised intermittent output power would be inconsistent with its 
typical use, since the external power supply test procedure requires 
operating the external power supply at full load for 30 minutes, 
whereas the high-power external power supply only operates at 
intermittent output power for substantially shorter periods of time. 
Further, DOE believes that operating the external power supply for 30 
minutes at its intermittent output power might damage the external 
power supply due to overheating, because the external power supply is 
only designed to operate at the higher level for brief intermittent 
intervals. Therefore, in the case where more than one output current is 
listed, DOE is requiring that the external power supply be tested at 
only the continuous loading conditions.

[[Page 31772]]

4. Active Power
    DOE proposed to incorporate a definition for battery charger 
``active power'' into section 2 of appendix Y. 75 FR 16958, 16973. This 
definition would provide that ``active power'' as meaning ``the average 
power consumed by a unit.'' Id. at 16980. DOE proposed this definition 
because of related proposals to measure the power consumption of a 
battery charger during active mode. DOE did not receive any comments on 
the definition it proposed in its NOPR. Therefore, in the absence of 
any comments, and to ensure the viability and completeness of the 
active mode procedure, DOE is incorporating its proposed definition 
into its regulations.

E. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply Test Procedure

    In 2008, DOE first proposed a test procedure for multiple-voltage 
external power supplies as part of its NOPR test procedure for standby 
and off modes for single-voltage external power supplies. See 73 FR 
48054. That proposal detailed an approach that would have required 
measuring efficiency levels at no-load, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 
percent, and 100 percent of nameplate output, but result in a single 
average efficiency measurement. Id. at 48082. In 2009, DOE finalized 
its test procedure for standby and off modes, but in light of 
substantial concerns raised by commenters, it did not incorporate a 
procedure to accommodate multiple-voltage external power supplies. See 
74 FR 13318, 13322. DOE re-proposed the incorporation of a multiple-
voltage external power supply procedure as part of this rulemaking 
proposal. This more recent proposal specified an approach that would 
require measurements at each loading point. 75 FR 16958, 16974.
    PG&E supported the creation of a separate multi-voltage external 
power supply test procedure so long as it would not impact the current 
single-voltage external power supply test procedure already in use. 
(PG&E, No. 2 at p. 15) ASAP, SCE, and PG&E also accepted DOE's proposed 
measurement and reporting method for multiple-voltage output external 
power supplies, but encouraged DOE to evenly weight the 25-percent, 50-
percent, 75-percent, and 100-percent loading conditions in any 
forthcoming standards. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 16; SCE, No. 13 at p. 16; 
PG&E, No. 12 at p. 16)
    AHAM objected to DOE's proposal to report five efficiency metrics 
for external power supplies without aggregating them. (AHAM, No. 2 at 
p. 211) AHAM further commented ``* * * `a test procedure for covered 
products should measure energy efficiency,' '' and that this action is 
inconsistent with the direction of section 323 of EPCA. (AHAM, No. 2 at 
p. 219). AHAM also commented that it may make more sense to measure 
multiple-voltage external power supplies at values representative of 
typical loading rather than 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of full load. 
(AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 212-213)
    Although AHAM expressed concern over the multiple-voltage test 
procedure, outputting separate metrics creates a method similar to that 
for battery chargers. Adopting an approach that parallels the battery 
charger method is preferable because of the similar nature of these two 
products and the potential variation of use from consumer to consumer 
that can be expected. Again, as with the battery charger test procedure 
(see section III.B.5.a), DOE may combine them for purposes of 
determining compliance with any energy conservation standard that may 
be set.

F. Test Procedure Amendments Not Incorporated in this Final Rule

1. Incorporating Usage Profiles
    DOE proposed to amend the battery charger test procedure to measure 
energy consumption in each mode, which would more readily permit 
comparisons between a greater number of test results. 75 FR 16958, 
16974.
    PG&E supported this approach and stated that DOE is moving in the 
right direction by outputting multiple measures rather than a single 
one because this allows the different usage of products to be taken 
into account. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 51). PG&E also 
commented that having multiple outputs may create a test procedure that 
can easily be harmonized across jurisdictions. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 
No. 2 at pp. 14-15) Similarly, ASAP, PG&E, and SCE supported DOE's 
approach. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 13; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at 
p. 13)
    Other commenters preferred that the test procedure combine all 
measurements into a single metric. AHAM stated that DOE should 
integrate energy consumption from active, maintenance, and no-battery 
mode through usage factors required by law. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 
2 at p. 48) AHAM also supported incorporating usage profiles, stating 
that having one value will help a consumer to choose between product A 
and product B based on energy efficiency. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 
at p. 56) AHAM commented that ``it is incumbent upon DOE to make 
available an aggregate energy use number of the energy use or energy 
efficiency of a battery charger that is ` * * * representative of 
typical use.' '' (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 3) AHAM noted that, in reference 
to the periodic (seven-year) review of a given test procedure that DOE 
must conduct in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b), the procedure should 
include usage factors in order to improve the current procedure and to 
allow the test procedure to stand for seven more years. (AHAM, No. 10 
at p. 3) ``All energy from active, maintenance, and no-battery modes 
should have factors of usage applied to them and then aggregated to 
arrive at one value.'' (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 3)
    PTI commented that the disaggregated data do not represent the 
typical use of the product as accurately as a combined metric would. 
(PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 48) PTI preferred that the test 
procedure result in a metric that tells the consumer something about 
the overall efficiency of the product, because, when it becomes 
effective, representations of energy use based on other test procedures 
will become invalid. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 50) PTI 
commented that ``[w]hile active mode must be included in the test 
procedure, it should be included in a manner that generates a 
proportioned, aggregated value, consistent with the philosophy 
expressed in the existing test procedure, and [be] in line with the 
Department's obligation to produce a procedure that reflects typical 
use.'' (PTI, No. 8 at p. 2) PTI further stated that an aggregation 
``will not reflect every particular user, but would rather represent an 
average of use. This [approach] would not be consistent with the 
requirement to have the test procedure reflect `typical' use.'' (PTI, 
No. 8 at p. 2) PTI suggested that DOE should ``have a series of ratios, 
by product category, that can be used to aggregate the quantities in 
the proposed test procedure.'' (PTI, No. 8 at p. 2) ``By DOE issuing 
the current [proposed] test procedure as a national test, it permits 
entities to use a test procedure in a manner that does not reflect 
typical use or DOE's intent.'' (PTI, No. 8 at p. 2)
    Phillips stated that the ``only way for the test procedure to be 
representative of typical use is to have the test procedure utilize use 
patterns of representative classes of battery chargers.'' (Phillips, 
No. 7 at p. 2) Phillips also commented that it is essential that the 
test procedure require the typical energy use factors established by 
the Department for particular categories of products. (Phillips, No. 7 
at p. 2) Phillips supported ``AHAM's position to have the test 
procedure aggregate energy use

[[Page 31773]]

data.'' (Phillips, No. 7 at p. 3) According to Phillips, the ENERGY 
STAR specifications for battery charger do not require measuring output 
energy use in each mode, which it believes demonstrates that these 
measurements are not of significant interest to consumers. (Phillips, 
No. 7 at p. 3)
    Wahl Clipper stated that the test procedure should measure the 
energy consumption of products representative of typical use. This 
measurement, in its view, should be an aggregated number of the active, 
standby, and maintenance modes, which is representative of the typical 
use for that product category. (Wahl Clipper, No. 9, at p. 1)
    AHAM cited other test procedures and commented that for a number of 
appliances, the usage factors are in the test procedure such that they 
output one metric. Usage factors are used in this way in test 
procedures for washing machines and refrigeration cycling, and are 
being proposed for clothes dryers. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 
58) AHAM specifically cited the clothes washer test procedure, from 
which a single MEF (modified energy factor) value is derived that is 
based on choices of cycles and percentage of wash loads going to a 
dryer. The standard is then set against the MEF value. (AHAM, No. 10 at 
p. 3)
    PTI stated that the test procedure should indicate that it is 
intended to be used with usage profiles in the standard to ensure that 
the data are not misused. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 172) 
Phillips suggested that the battery charger usage profiles should 
either be in the test procedure or the test procedure should include a 
reference explaining that the usage factors are in the standard. 
(Phillips, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 240) PTI added that DOE should 
``indicate clearly that the test procedure is only intended to be used 
with the suggested ratios and shall not be used until they become 
available. As soon as the ratios are developed, DOE should update its 
test procedure and reissue it with the ratios incorporated.'' (PTI, No. 
8 at p. 2)
    Commenters also expressed a variety of views regarding the 
disseminating of product usage information. PG&E commented that 
consumers know how they use their products. If the test procedure 
outputs a separate metric for each mode, consumers will know which 
number they should check when comparing energy consumption levels among 
products. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 54) AHAM was concerned 
that consumers may not know how their products are used and argued that 
DOE should give the consumer a single value representing a product's 
average, or approximate average, usage pattern. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 
No. 2 at p. 55) Usage factors applied against an aggregated value will 
give the consumer accurate information on how the product is used. 
(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 53) PG&E similarly stated that 
manufacturers may not be able to give accurate estimates of how much 
time their product spends in each mode annually. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. 
Tran., No. 2 at p. 54) An aggregation based on calculated averages does 
not, in its view, help the consumer determine what amount of energy 
their particular usage pattern will consume. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 
No. 2 at p. 54) AHAM emphasized that consumers need a single piece of 
information on energy efficiency so that products can be compared. 
(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 3)
    Phillips cited section 6 of the draft technical report that 
accompanied the battery charger and external power supply framework 
document and described the usage of its own products. Phillips 
generally supported the approach taken by DOE to examine usage 
patterns. It noted, in reference to its own products (notably, electric 
shavers), that there cannot be a meaningful energy reduction for 
products that ``have limited usage patterns [that spend] most, if not 
close to all of their time in unplugged mode.'' (Phillips, No. 7 at p. 
2)
    DOE notes that the relevant statute permits DOE to promulgate a 
test procedure that either produces measurements of energy use or 
efficiency (neither of which would require usage profile data) or the 
estimated annual operating cost of a product (which would require usage 
profile data). Specifically, test procedures should ``be reasonably 
designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, 
energy use, water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, water 
closets, or urinals), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered 
product under a representative average use cycle or period of use * * 
*'' 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) The procedure DOE is promulgating today 
satisfies this requirement by producing a measurement of energy usage. 
Accordingly, energy usage profiles, as suggested by some commenters, 
are unnecessary for DOE to use in developing this test procedure.
2. Measuring Charger Output Energy
    During the framework document public meeting, DOE suggested the 
possible approach of including a procedure that would require measuring 
the charger output energy rather than the battery output energy in 
order to calculate the total energy consumed by the battery charger 
during charging \16\ (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 162-164). (DOE 
believed at the time that measuring energy consumption at the charger 
output, thereby bypassing the battery, could remove some of the 
variability from the measurement. Commenters were unified in opposition 
to this change and it was not proposed in the NOPR. During the NOPR 
public meeting, AHAM agreed with DOE's decision to drop this approach. 
(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A notation in the form ``Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 162-
164'' identifies DOE's explanation of this issue during the July 16, 
2009, framework document public meeting. This explanation and 
comments received were recorded in the public meeting transcript in 
the docket of the BC and EPS energy conservation standards 
rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT- STD-0005, RIN 1904-AB57), 
maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program 
and available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_standards_meeting_transcript.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Alternative Depth-of-Discharge Measurement
    In its NOPR, DOE discussed the possibility of requiring that 
battery chargers be tested with batteries at the 100 percent depth-of-
discharge level. 75 FR 16958, 16975. DOE proposed this approach in 
response to comments that critiqued the initial approach DOE had 
considered using, which DOE described during the framework document 
public meeting (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 162-164).\17\ During that 
stage, DOE discussed the possibility of testing battery chargers with 
batteries at 40 percent depth-of-discharge, meaning that they would 
contain a 60 percent charge. Commenters opposed this earlier approach 
because it would unnecessarily complicate the test procedure and be an 
assumption of typical use that would be hard to substantiate. 75 FR 
16958, 16975. See also Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 195-196, 199-200, 
201, 206; PG&E et al., No. 20 at p. 16.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers and 
External Power Supplies. May 2009. Washington, DC. Available at: 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_frameworkdocument.pdf.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM agreed with DOE's removal of the 40 percent depth-of-discharge 
measurement, saying that DOE should not require measurements at 
multiple depths of discharge. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 175; AHAM, No. 10 at 
p. 7)
    Alternatively, Euro-Pro noted that if batteries are only measured 
at 100

[[Page 31774]]

percent depth-of-discharge, the energy use of batteries with protective 
circuitry that prevents them from reaching that depth may not be able 
to be accurately measured. (Euro-Pro, No. 2 at p. 177) They also 
commented that products that will not permit a 100-percent depth-of-
discharge level when being used by consumers may achieve better energy 
use ratings than they deserve. This is because they will never be able 
to reach a 100-percent depth-of-discharge level, yet the test procedure 
will test them at this level. As a result, the test will measure the 
presence of more energy to be recovered from the battery than can be 
used by the consumer. (Euro-Pro, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 179)
    DOE acknowledges the comments from interested parties. DOE believes 
that by following the outlined test procedure, including the 
preparatory discharge step, products will not inadvertently achieve 
better energy use ratings than what they are capable of achieving when 
in actual use in the field. The UUT will be taken from a known state of 
discharge, charged, and then discharged back to the known state, which 
ensures that a product's energy consumption will be appropriate for its 
design and capabilities. By following this procedure, it should be 
physically impossible to get more energy out of the battery during the 
measured discharge than what was put in during the measured charge and 
maintenance mode test. Therefore, as discussed in the NOPR, DOE will 
not incorporate testing at alternative levels of depths-of-discharge. 
Requiring testing at only 100 percent depth-of-discharge also promotes 
consistent testing across products, making it easy to compare products 
and reducing the testing burden on manufacturers.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) 
requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for 
any rule that, by law, must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on 
small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative 
effects. Also, as required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper 
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 
(August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 
19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impact of its rules on small 
entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 
FR 7990. DOE made its procedures and policies available on the Office 
of the General Counsel's Web site at http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE identified producers of products covered by this rulemaking 
that have manufacturing facilities located within the United States and 
could be considered small entities by searching the SBA Web site to 
identify manufacturers within the applicable NAICS code. After 
examining this information, DOE ascertained that many of the companies 
that manufacture these products are large multinational corporations 
with more than 500 employees. DOE also identified some small businesses 
that could potentially be manufacturers of covered products. DOE notes 
that with respect to battery charger and multiple-voltage external 
power supply manufacturers, there are currently no standards in place 
for these products for manufacturers to meet. Accordingly, 
manufacturers are under no obligation to use these procedures until DOE 
prescribes standards for them. As for the changes to the single-voltage 
external power supply procedure, these proposed amendments will reduce 
the overall burden to manufacturers and provide a means to test more 
complex devices.
    After reviewing its proposal, DOE had tentatively concluded that 
two aspects of the proposal may result in some increased testing burden 
for manufacturers generally: the revision of the battery charger test 
procedure to include a test for battery chargers operating in active 
mode and the addition of a test procedure for multiple-voltage external 
power supplies.
    DOE anticipates, however, that adding an active mode battery 
charger test procedure will not be likely to cause a significant burden 
to small manufacturers because the steps in the active mode test 
procedure that DOE is promulgating in this rule already exist in the 
current DOE test procedure. The additional step that this rule will 
require will be the recording of certain values during one of those 
steps. Additionally, this rule is based largely on procedures already 
implemented by the State of California that are already followed by the 
industry. By basing its rule on these established procedures, DOE 
anticipates little, if any, incremental increase in testing cost or 
burden from this rulemaking. Manufacturers are familiar with the steps 
detailed in the procedure being adopted today and should already have 
the necessary equipment to conduct these tests.
    Similarly, the addition of a multiple-voltage external power supply 
test procedure will not have a significant impact on small businesses 
since these devices are manufactured almost exclusively by businesses 
that exceed the small business size threshold for this category. 
Further, the multiple-voltage external power supply test procedure 
being adopted today is nearly identical to the single-voltage external 
power supply procedure already in place that manufacturers must follow. 
This procedure was not noted by interested parties as being burdensome 
by small businesses.
    In addition to the relatively modest changes introduced by today's 
rule to the existing test procedure that manufacturers are already 
using, manufacturers will only be required to test products that are 
subject to energy conservation standards. Currently, there are no 
standards in place for battery chargers or multiple-voltage external 
power supplies. Until energy conservation standards are adopted, no 
entities, small or large, would be required to comply with the proposed 
battery charger and external power supply test procedures. As a result, 
in light of all of the above factors, DOE believes that today's rule 
would not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.''
    The amendments discussed in this final rule affecting Class A 
external power supplies, which are covered by statutorily-set 
standards, do not significantly change the existing test procedure used 
to measure the energy output of these devices. DOE does not expect 
these amendments to impose a significant new testing and compliance 
burden. Therefore, these amendments also would be unlikely to have 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 
for this rulemaking. DOE has provided its

[[Page 31775]]

certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of battery chargers and external power supplies must 
certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy 
conservation standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must 
test their equipment according to the applicable DOE test procedure, 
including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has 
adopted regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial 
equipment, including battery chargers and external power supplies. 76 
FR 12442 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for 
the certification and recordkeeping has been approved by OMB under 
control number 1910-1400. The public reporting burden for the 
certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedures for battery 
chargers and external power supplies. These amendments will enable 
manufacturers to test the energy consumption of battery chargers while 
charging batteries and reduce the amount of testing time during standby 
and off mode testing. The amendments also provide a method by which to 
test those external power supplies that are equipped with USB outputs 
as well as those power supplies that are of the multi-voltage type. 
These amendments, where applicable, will also be used to develop and 
implement future energy conservation standards for battery chargers and 
external power supplies. After carefully considering the nature and 
impacts of this rule, DOE has determined that this final rule falls 
into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et 
seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 
Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without changing its 
environmental effect, and, therefore, is covered by the categorical 
exclusion contained in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, paragraph A5. The 
exclusion applies because this rule establishes revisions to existing 
test procedures that will not affect the amount, quality, or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any 
environmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment 
nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this rule and has determined 
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of state 
regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the 
subject of today's rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from 
such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive 
Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
the rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. 
L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. For proposed regulatory actions likely to result in a 
rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million 
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting 
costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 
1532(a), (b)) UMRA also requires Federal agencies to develop an 
effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, 
local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate.'' In addition, UMRA requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to small governments 
that may be affected before establishing a requirement that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). Today's rule contains neither an intergovernmental 
mandate, nor a

[[Page 31776]]

mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in 
any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule that may affect family 
well-being. Today's rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is unnecessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule will not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; 44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies 
to review most disseminations of information to the public under 
guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines 
issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 
2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 
2002). DOE has reviewed today's rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines 
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in 
those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory 
action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it is not a 
significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), DOE must comply with section 
32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275), 
as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 
1977 (Pub. L. 95-70). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 provides that, where a 
proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the 
rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such 
standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) about the 
effect of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
    DOE has evaluated these revised standards, which are based on 
testing protocols developed and adopted by the State of California. The 
specific sections from the CEC procedure that today's rule incorporates 
into the test procedure are from Part 1 of the test procedure, with 
some modifications for clarity. After examining the public record 
related to the promulgation of these requirements by the CEC, DOE 
believes that these procedures were developed in a manner that fully 
provided for public participation, comment, and review from all 
interested parties. Additionally, DOE has consulted with the Attorney 
General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the affect on 
competition of requiring manufacturers to use the test methods 
contained in these standards, and neither objected to the incorporation 
of these standards.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2011.
 Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology 
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  430.23 revise paragraph (aa) to read as follows:

Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (aa) Battery Chargers. Upon the effective date of any energy 
conservation standard for battery chargers governing active and 
maintenance mode energy consumption, the 24-hour energy consumption of 
a battery charger in active and maintenance modes, expressed in 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.
* * * * *

0
3. Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 31777]]

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers

    The provisions of this appendix are effective on the compliance 
date of any energy conservation standard for battery chargers.

1. Scope

    This appendix covers the test requirements used to measure 
battery charger energy consumption for battery chargers operating at 
either DC or United States AC line voltage (115V at 60Hz).

2. Definitions

    The following definitions are for the purposes of explaining the 
terminology associated with the test method for measuring battery 
charger energy consumption.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For clarity on any other terminology used in the test 
method, please refer to IEEE Standard 1515-2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN11.020

    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, series-
parallel, 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 multi-voltage charger.
    2.6. Battery or battery pack is an assembly of one or more 
rechargeable cells and any integral protective circuitry intended to 
provide electrical energy to a consumer product, and may be in one 
of the following forms: (a) Detachable battery (a battery that is 
contained in a separate enclosure from the consumer product and is 
intended to be removed or disconnected from the consumer product for 
recharging); or (b) integral battery (a battery that is contained 
within the consumer product and is not removed from the consumer 
product for charging purposes). The word ``intended'' in this 
context refers to the whether a battery has been designed in such a 
way as to permit its removal or disconnection from its associated 
consumer product.
    2.7. Battery energy is the energy, in watt-hours, delivered by 
the battery under the specified discharge conditions in the test 
procedure.
    2.8. Battery maintenance mode or maintenance mode is the mode of 
operation when the battery charger is connected to the main 
electricity supply and the battery is fully charged, but is still 
connected to the charger.
    2.9. Battery rest period is a period of time between discharge 
and charge or between charge and discharge, during which the battery 
is resting in an open-circuit state in ambient air.
    2.10. C-rate is the rate of charge or discharge, calculated by 
dividing the charge or discharge current by the rated charge 
capacity of the battery.
    2.11. Cradle is an electrical interface between an integral 
battery product and the rest of the battery charger designed to hold 
the product between uses.
    2.12. Equalization is a process whereby a battery is 
overcharged, beyond what would be considered ``normal'' charge 
return, so that cells can be balanced, electrolyte mixed, and plate 
sulfation removed.
    2.13. Instructions or manufacturer's instructions means the 
documentation packaged with a product in printed or electronic form 
and any information about the product listed on a Web site 
maintained by the manufacturer and accessible by the general public 
at the time of the test. It also includes any information on the 
packaging or on the product itself. ``Instructions'' also includes 
any service manuals or data sheets that the manufacturer offers to 
independent service technicians, whether printed or in electronic 
form.
    2.14. Measured charge capacity of a battery is the product of 
the discharge current in amperes and the time in decimal hours 
required to reach the specified end-of-discharge voltage.
    2.15. Manual on-off switch is a switch activated by the user to 
control power reaching the battery charger. This term does not apply 
to any mechanical, optical, or electronic switches that 
automatically disconnect mains power from the battery charger when a 
battery is removed from a cradle or charging base, or for products 
with non-detachable batteries that control power to the product 
itself.
    2.16. Multi-port charger means a battery charger that charges 
two or more batteries (which may be identical or different) 
simultaneously. The batteries are not connected in series or in 
parallel but with each port having separate voltage and/or current 
regulation. If the charger has status indicators, each port has its 
own indicator(s). A charger can be both a batch charger and a multi-
port charger if it is capable of charging two or more batches of 
batteries simultaneously and each batch has separate regulation and/
or indicator(s).
    2.17. Multi-voltage charger is a battery charger that, by 
design, can charge a variety of batteries (or batches of batteries, 
if also a batch charger) that are of different rated battery 
voltages. A multi-voltage charger can also be a multi-port charger 
if it can charge two or more batteries simultaneously with 
independent voltage and/or current regulation.
    2.18. Off mode is the condition, applicable only to units with 
manual on-off switches, in which the battery charger:
    (1) Is connected to the main electricity supply;
    (2) Is not connected to the battery; and
    (3) All manual on-off switches are turned off.
    2.19. Rated battery voltage is specified by the manufacturer and 
typically printed on the label of the battery itself. If there are 
multiple batteries that are connected in series, the rated battery 
voltage of the batteries is the total voltage of the series 
configuration--that is, the rated voltage of each battery multiplied 
by the number of batteries connected in series. Connecting multiple 
batteries in parallel does not affect the rated battery voltage.
    2.20. Rated charge capacity is the capacity claimed by a 
manufacturer, on a label or in instructions, the battery can store 
under specified test conditions, usually given in ampere-hours (Ah) 
or milliampere-hours (mAh) and typically printed on the label of the 
battery itself. If there are multiple batteries that are connected 
in parallel, the rated charge capacity of the batteries is the total 
charge capacity of the parallel configuration, that is, the rated 
charge capacity of each battery multiplied by the number of 
batteries connected in parallel. Connecting multiple batteries in 
series does not affect the rated charge capacity.
    2.21. Rated energy capacity means the product (in watt-hours) of 
the rated battery voltage and the rated charge capacity.
    2.22. Standby mode or no-battery mode means the condition in 
which:
    (1) The battery charger is connected to the main electricity 
supply;
    (2) The battery is not connected to the charger; and
    (3) For battery chargers with manual on-off switches, all such 
switches are turned on.
    2.23. Total harmonic distortion (THD), expressed as a percent, 
is the root mean square (RMS) value of an AC signal after the 
fundamental component is removed and interharmonic components are 
ignored, divided by the RMS value of the fundamental component.
    2.24. Unit under test (UUT) in this appendix refers to the 
combination of the battery charger and battery being tested.

3. Standard Test Conditions

3.1. General

    The values that may be measured or calculated during the conduct 
of this test procedure have been summarized for easy reference in 
Table 3.1.

[[Page 31778]]

            Table 3.1-- List of Measured or Calculated Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of measured or calculated
               value                     Reference            Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Duration of the charge and             Section 5.2   ................
 maintenance mode test.............
2. Battery Discharge Energy........       Section 4.6   ................
3. Initial time and power (W) of          Section 5.8   ................
 the input current of connected
 battery...........................
4. Active and Maintenance Mode            Section 5.8   ................
 Energy Consumption................
5. Maintenance Mode Power..........       Section 5.9   ................
6. 24 Hour Energy Consumption......       Section 5.10  ................
7. Standby Mode Power..............       Section 5.11  ................
8. Off Mode Power..................       Section 5.12  ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2. Verifying Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment

    a. Measurements of active power of 0.5 W or greater shall be 
made with an uncertainty of s. The ambient temperature shall be maintained 
at 20 [deg]C  5 [deg]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 non-conductive 
surface. When not undergoing active testing, batteries shall be 
stored at 20 [deg]C  5 [deg]C.

3.4. Verifying the UUT's Input Voltage and Input Frequency

    a. If the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input 
in the United States, it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If the 
UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input but cannot be 
operated at 115 V at 60 Hz, it shall not be tested.
    b. If a charger is powered by a low-voltage DC or AC input, and 
the manufacturer packages the charger with a wall adapter, sells, or 
recommends an optional wall adapter capable of providing that low 
voltage input, then the charger shall be tested using that wall 
adapter and the input reference source shall be 115 V at 60 Hz. If 
the wall adapter cannot be operated with AC input voltage at 115 V 
at 60 Hz, the charger shall not be tested.
    c. If the UUT is designed for operation only on DC input voltage 
and the provisions of paragraph 3.4 (b) above do not apply, it shall 
be tested with one of the following input voltages: 5.0 V DC for 
products drawing power from a computer USB port or the midpoint of 
the rated input voltage range for all other products. The input 
voltage shall be within  1 percent of the above 
specified voltage.
    d. If the input voltage is AC, the input frequency shall be 
within  1 percent of the specified frequency. The THD of 
the input voltage shall be hr) into a 
load.
    b. All conductors used for contacting the battery must be 
cleaned and burnished prior to connecting in order to decrease 
voltage drops and achieve consistent results.
    c. Manufacturer's instructions for disassembly shall be 
followed, except those instructions that:
    (1) Lead to any permanent alteration of the battery charger 
circuitry or function;
    (2) Could alter the energy consumption of the battery charger 
compared to that experienced by a user during typical use, e.g., due 
to changes in the airflow through the enclosure of the UUT; or
    (3) Conflict requirements of this test procedure.
    d. Care shall be taken by the technician during disassembly to 
follow appropriate safety precautions. If the functionality of the 
device or its safety features is compromised, the product shall be 
discarded after testing.
    e. Some products may include protective circuitry between the 
battery cells and the remainder of the device. If the manufacturer 
provides a description for accessing the connections at the output 
of the protective circuitry, these connections shall be used to 
discharge the battery and measure the discharge energy. The energy 
consumed by the protective circuitry during discharge shall not be 
measured or credited as battery energy.
    f. If the technician, despite diligent effort and use of the 
manufacturer's instructions, encounters any of the following 
conditions noted immediately below, the Battery Discharge Energy and 
the Charging and Maintenance Mode Energy shall be reported as ``Not 
Applicable'':
    (1) Inability to access the battery terminals;
    (2) Access to the battery terminals destroys charger 
functionality; or
    (3) Inability to draw current from the test battery.

4.6. Determining Charge Capacity for Batteries With No Rating

    If there is no rating for the battery charge capacity on the 
battery or in the instructions, then the technician shall determine 
a discharge current that meets the following requirements. The 
battery shall be fully charged and then discharged at this constant-
current rate until it reaches the end-of-discharge voltage specified 
in Table 5.2. The discharge time must be not less than 4.5 hours nor 
more than 5 hours. In addition, the discharge test (Section 5.6) 
(which may not be starting with a fully-charged battery) shall reach 
the end-of-discharge voltage within 5 hours. The same discharge 
current shall be used for both the preparations step (Section 5.4) 
and the discharge test (Section 5.6). The test report shall include 
the discharge current used and the resulting discharge times for 
both a fully-charged battery and for the discharge test.
    For this section, the battery is considered as ``fully charged'' 
when either (a) it has been charged by the UUT until an indicator on 
the UUT shows that the charge is complete, or (b) it has been 
charged by a battery analyzer at a current not greater than the 
discharge current until the battery analyzer indicates that the 
battery is fully charged.
    When there is no capacity rating, a suitable discharge current 
must generally be determined by trial and error. Since the 
conditioning step does not require constant-current discharges, the 
trials themselves may also be counted as part of battery 
conditioning.

5. Test Measurement

    The test sequence to measure the battery charger energy 
consumption is summarized in Table 5.1, and explained in detail 
below. Measurements shall be made under test conditions and with the 
equipment specified in Sections 3 and 4.

[[Page 31780]]

                                                                Table 5.1--Test Sequence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Equipment needed
                                                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Thermometer
     Step                    Description                     Data taken?                                   Battery                         (for flooded
                                                                                  Test       Charger     analyzer or     AC power meter     lead-acid
                                                                                 battery                  constant-                          battery
                                                                                                         current load                     chargers only)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............  Record general data on UUT; Section    Yes...................          X           X   ...............  ...............  ...............
                 5.1.
2.............  Determine test duration; Section 5.2.  No....................  ..........  ..........  ...............  ...............  ...............
3.............  Battery conditioning; Section 5.3....  No....................          X           X                X   ...............  ...............
4.............  Prepare battery for charge test;       No....................          X           X   ...............  ...............  ...............
                 Section 5.4.
5.............  Battery rest period; Section 5.5.....  No....................          X   ..........  ...............  ...............               X
6.............  Conduct Charge Mode and Battery        Yes...................          X           X   ...............               X   ...............
                 Maintenance Mode Test; Section 5.6.
7.............  Battery Rest Period; Section 5.7.....  No....................          X   ..........  ...............  ...............               X
8.............  Battery Discharge Energy Test;         Yes...................          X   ..........               X   ...............  ...............
                 Section 5.8.
9.............  Determining the Maintenance Mode       Yes...................          X           X   ...............               X   ...............
                 Power; Section 5.9.
10............  Calculating the 24-Hour Energy         No....................  ..........  ..........  ...............  ...............  ...............
                 Consumption; Section 5.10.
11............  Standby Mode Test; Section 5.11......  Yes...................  ..........          X   ...............               X   ...............
12............  Off Mode Test; Section 5.12..........  Yes...................  ..........          X   ...............               X   ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.1. Recording General Data on the UUT

    The technician shall record:
    (1) The manufacturer and model of the battery charger;
    (2) The presence and status of any additional functions 
unrelated to battery charging;
    (3) The manufacturer, model, and number of batteries in the test 
battery;
    (4) The rated battery voltage of the test battery;
    (5) The rated charge capacity of the test battery; and
    (6) The rated charge energy of the test battery.
    (7) The settings of the controls, if battery charger has user 
controls to select from two or more charge rates

5.2. Determining the Duration of the Charge and Maintenance Mode 
Test

    a. The charging and maintenance mode test, described in detail 
in section 5.8, shall be 24 hours in length or longer, as determined 
by the items below. Proceed in order until a test duration is 
determined.
    (1) If the battery charger has an indicator to show that the 
battery is fully charged, that indicator shall be used as follows: 
If the indicator shows that the battery is charged after 19 hours of 
charging, the test shall be terminated at 24 hours. Conversely, if 
the full-charge indication is not yet present after 19 hours of 
charging, the test shall continue until 5 hours after the indication 
is present.
    (2) If there is no indicator, but the manufacturer's 
instructions indicate that charging this battery or this capacity of 
battery should be complete within 19 hours, the test shall be for 24 
hours. If the instructions indicate that charging may take longer 
than 19 hours, the test shall be run for the longest estimated 
charge time plus 5 hours.
    (3) If there is no indicator and no time estimate in the 
instructions, but the charging current is stated on the charger or 
in the instructions, calculate the test duration as the longer of 24 
hours or:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN11.021

    b. If none of the above applies, the duration of the test shall 
be 24 hours.

5.3. Battery Conditioning

    a. No conditioning is to be done on lead-acid or lithium-ion 
batteries. The test technician shall proceed directly to battery 
preparation, section 5.4, when testing chargers for these batteries.
    b. Products with integral batteries will have to be disassembled 
per the instructions in section 4.5, and the battery disconnected 
from the charger for discharging.
    c. Batteries of other chemistries that have not been previously 
cycled are to be conditioned by performing two charges and two 
discharges, followed by a charge, as below. No data need be recorded 
during battery conditioning.
    (1) The test battery shall be fully charged for the duration 
specified in section 5.2 or longer using the UUT.
    (2) The test battery shall then be fully discharged using 
either:
    (i) A battery analyzer at a rate not to exceed 1 C, until its 
average cell voltage under load reaches the end-of-discharge voltage 
specified in Table 5.2 for the relevant battery chemistry; or
    (ii) The UUT, until the UUT ceases operation due to low battery 
voltage.
    (3) The test battery shall again be fully charged as in step 
c.(1) of this section.
    (4) The test battery shall again be fully discharged as per step 
c.(2) of this section.
    (5) The test battery shall be again fully charged as in step 
c.(1) of this section.
    d. Batteries of chemistries other than lead-acid or lithium-ion 
that are known to have been through at least two previous full 
charge/discharge cycles shall only be charged once per step c.(5), 
of this section.

5.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge Testing

    Following any conditioning prior to beginning the battery charge 
test (section 5.6), the test battery shall be fully discharged for 
the duration specified in section 5.2 or longer using a battery 
analyzer.

5.5. Resting the Battery

    The test battery shall be rested between preparation and the 
battery charge test. The rest period shall be at least one hour and 
not exceed 24 hours. For batteries with flooded cells, the 
electrolyte temperature shall be less than 30 [deg]C before 
charging, even if the rest period must be extended longer than 24 
hours.

5.6. Testing Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode

    a. The Charge and Battery Maintenance Mode test measures the 
energy consumed during charge mode and some time spent in the 
maintenance mode of the UUT. Functions required for battery 
conditioning that happen only with some user-selected switch or 
other control shall not be included in this measurement. (The 
technician shall manually turn off any battery conditioning cycle or 
setting.) Regularly occurring battery conditioning or maintenance 
functions that are not controlled by the user will, by

[[Page 31781]]

default, be incorporated into this measurement.
    b. During the measurement period, input power values to the UUT 
shall be recorded at least once every minute.
    (1) If possible, the technician shall set the data logging 
system to record the average power during the sample interval. The 
total energy is computed as the sum of power samples (in watts) 
multiplied by the sample interval (in hours).
    (2) If this setting is not possible, then the power analyzer 
shall be set to integrate or accumulate the input power over the 
measurement period and this result shall be used as the total 
energy.
    c. The technician shall follow these steps:
    (1) Ensure that the user-controllable device functionality not 
associated with battery charging and any battery conditioning cycle 
or setting are turned off, as instructed in section 4.4;
    (2) Ensure that the test battery used in this test has been 
conditioned, prepared, discharged, and rested as described in 
sections 5.3 through 5.7;
    (3) Connect the data logging equipment to the battery charger;
    (4) Record the start time of the measurement period, and begin 
logging the input power;
    (5) Connect the test battery to the battery charger within 3 
minutes of beginning logging. For integral battery products, connect 
the product to a cradle or wall adapter within 3 minutes of 
beginning logging;
    (6) After the test battery is connected, record the initial time 
and power (W) of the input current to the UUT. These measurements 
shall be taken within the first 10 minutes of active charging;
    (7) Record the input power for the duration of the ``Charging 
and Maintenance Mode Test'' period, as determined by section 5.2. 
The actual time that power is connected to the UUT shall be within 
 5 minutes of the specified period; and
    (8) Disconnect power to the UUT, terminate data logging, and 
record the final time.

5.7. Resting the Battery

    The test battery shall be rested between charging and 
discharging. The rest period shall be at least 1 hour and not more 
than 4 hours, with an exception for flooded cells. For batteries 
with flooded cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less than 
30 [deg]C before charging, even if the rest period must be extended 
beyond 4 hours.

5.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test

    a. If multiple batteries were charged simultaneously, the 
discharge energy is the sum of the discharge energies of all the 
batteries.
    (1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that were charged in 
separate ports shall be discharged independently.
    (2) For a batch charger, batteries that were charged as a group 
may be discharged individually, as a group, or in sub-groups 
connected in series and/or parallel. The position of each battery 
with respect to the other batteries need not be maintained.
    b. During discharge, the battery voltage and discharge current 
shall be sampled and recorded at least once per minute. The values 
recorded may be average or instantaneous values.
    c. For this test, the technician shall follow these steps:
    (1) Ensure that the test battery has been charged by the UUT and 
rested according to the procedures above.
    (2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant discharge current of 
0.2 [deg]C and the end-of-discharge voltage in Table 5.2 for the 
relevant battery chemistry.
    (3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer and begin recording 
the voltage, current, and wattage, if available from the battery 
analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage is reached or the UUT 
circuitry terminates the discharge, the test battery shall be 
returned to an open-circuit condition. If current continues to be 
drawn from the test battery after the end-of-discharge condition is 
first reached, this additional energy is not to be counted in the 
battery discharge energy.
    d. If not available from the battery analyzer, the battery 
discharge energy (in watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the 
voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and sample period (in 
hours) for each sample, and then summing over all sample periods 
until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.

5.9. Determining the Maintenance Mode Power

    After the measurement period is complete, the technician shall 
determine the average maintenance mode power consumption by 
examining the power-versus-time data from the charge and maintenance 
test and:
    (1) If the maintenance mode power is cyclic or shows periodic 
pulses, compute the average power over a time period that spans a 
whole number of cycles and includes at least the last 4 hours.
    (2) Otherwise, calculate the average power value over the last 4 
hours.

5.10. Determining the 24-Hour Energy Consumption

    The accumulated energy or the average input power, integrated 
over the test period from the charge and maintenance mode test, 
shall be used to calculate 24-hour energy consumption.

Table 5.2--Required Battery Discharge Rates and End-of-Discharge Battery
                                Voltages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       End-of- discharge
         Battery chemistry           Discharge rate C     voltage volts
                                                            per cell
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA)...               0.2               1.75
Flooded Lead Acid..................               0.2               1.70
Nickel Cadmium (NiCd)..............               0.2               1.0
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH)........               0.2               1.0
Lithium Ion (Li-Ion)...............               0.2               2.5
Lithium Polymer....................               0.2               2.5
Rechargeable Alkaline..............               0.2               0.9
Nanophosphate Lithium Ion..........               0.2               2.0
Silver Zinc........................               0.2               1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.11. Standby Mode Energy Consumption Measurement

    The standby mode measurement depends on the configuration of the 
battery charger, as follows.
    a. Conduct a measurement of standby power consumption while the 
battery charger is connected to the power source. Disconnect the 
battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 
30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time 
series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, 
divided by the period of measurement. If the battery charger has 
manual on-off switches, all must be turned on for the duration of 
the standby mode test.
    b. Standby mode may also apply to products with integral 
batteries. If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power 
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the 
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which 
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging 
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and 
standby mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or 
adapter alone.
    c. If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord 
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry, 
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and standby mode 
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero 
watts).

[[Page 31782]]

    d. Finally, if the product contains integrated power conversion 
and charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC 
power cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain 
connected to mains, and standby mode measurement is not applicable.

5.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption Measurement

    The off mode measurement depends on the configuration of the 
battery charger, as follows.
    a. If the battery charger has manual on-off switches, record a 
measurement of off mode energy consumption while the battery charger 
is connected to the power source. Remove the battery from the 
charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and 
record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time series integral 
of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, divided by the 
period of measurement, with all manual on-off switches turned off. 
If the battery charger does not have manual on-off switches, record 
that the off mode measurement is not applicable to this product.
    b. Off mode may also apply to products with integral batteries. 
If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power conversion and 
charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the charger'' will 
require disconnection of the end-use product, which contains the 
batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging system will 
remain connected to the main electricity supply, and off mode power 
consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or adapter alone.
    c. If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord 
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry, 
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and off mode 
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero 
watts).
    d. Finally, if the product contains integrated power conversion 
and charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC 
power cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain 
connected to mains, and off mode measurement is not applicable.
    4. Amend Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430 by revising paragraphs 
2(c), 3(b), 4(a)(i) and 4(b) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    2. * * *
    c. Active power (P) (also real power) means the average power 
consumed by a unit. For a two terminal device with current and 
voltage waveforms i(t) and v(t) which are periodic with period T, 
the real or active power P is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN11.022

* * * * *
    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 s. The ambient 
temperature shall be maintained at 20 [deg]C  5 [deg]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 non-conductive surface. A readily available material such 
as Styrofoam will be sufficient.

(iii) Verifying the UUT's Input Voltage and Input Frequency

    (A) If the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage 
input in the United States, it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If 
the UUT is intended for operation on AC line-voltage input but 
cannot be operated at 115 V at 60 Hz, it shall not be tested. The 
input voltage shall be within  1 percent of the above 
specified voltage.
    (B) If the input voltage is AC, the input frequency shall be 
within  1 percent of the specified frequency. The THD of 
the input voltage shall be 
                                          2%.
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 no-load 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 multiple-voltage external power 
supplies. For additional explanation, please refer to section 6.1.1 
of the California Energy Commission's ``Proposed Test Protocol for 
Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power Supplies 
Revision 6.2,'' November 2007.
    (1) Consider a multiple-voltage power supply with N output 
busses, and nameplate output voltages V1, * * *, VN, corresponding 
output current ratings I1, * * *, IN, and a nameplate output power 
P. Calculate the derating factor D by dividing the power supply 
nameplate output power P by the sum of the nameplate output powers 
of the individual output busses, equal to the product of bus 
nameplate output voltage and current IiVi, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN11.023

    (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  
0.5 percent. If electronic load banks are used, their settings 
should be adjusted such that they provide a constant current load to 
the unit under test.
    (E) Efficiency calculation. Efficiency shall be calculated by 
dividing the measured active output power of the unit under test at 
a given loading condition by the active AC input power measured at 
that loading condition. Efficiency shall be calculated at each 
Loading Condition (1, 2, 3, and 4, in Table 1) and be recorded 
separately.
    (F) Power consumption calculation. Power consumption of the unit 
under test at Loading Conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 is the difference 
between the active output power at that Loading Condition and the 
active AC input power at that Loading Condition. The power 
consumption of Loading Condition 5 (no-load) is equal to the AC 
active input power at that Loading Condition.
    (ii) Off Mode Measurement--If the multiple-voltage external 
power supply unit under test incorporates any on-off switches, the 
unit under test shall be placed in off mode and its power 
consumption in off mode measured and recorded. The measurement of 
the off mode energy consumption shall conform to the requirements 
specified in paragraph (4)(b)(i) of this appendix. Note that the 
only loading condition that will be measured for off mode is 
``Loading Condition 5'' in paragraph (A), ``Loading conditions and 
testing sequence'', except that all manual on-off switches shall be 
placed in the off position for the measurement.

[FR Doc. 2011-12595 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```