```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60996-61013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24180]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 60996]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0043]
RIN 1904-AD36

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for External Power 
Supplies

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy is proposing to revise its test 
procedure for external power supplies. These proposed revisions, if 
adopted, would harmonize the instrumentation resolution and uncertainty 
requirements with the second edition of the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62301 standard when measuring standby 
power along with other international standards programs. The proposal 
would also clarify certain testing set-up requirements. Finally, DOE is 
proposing an optional test to measure the active-mode efficiency at a 
10% loading condition and an optional recording of power factor at this 
loading condition and each of the other required loading conditions.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notice of proposed rulemaking no later than December 8, 2014. See 
section V, ``Public Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a 
public meeting on this proposed test procedure if one is requested by 
October 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test 
Procedures for External Power Supplies, and provide docket number EERE-
2014-BT-TP-0043 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-
AD36. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: ExtPowerSupplies2014TP0043@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 
number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx?productid=23 . This Web page will contain a link to the 
docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 
Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all 
documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for 
information on how to submit comments through regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or to request a public meeting, contact 
Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional 
information may be sent to Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies 
Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870.
    Email: battery_chargers_and_external_power_supplies@EE.Doe.Gov.
    For legal issues, please contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. 
Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    1. Scope
    2. Definitions
    3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions
    4. Test Measurement
III. Discussion
    A. Measurement Accuracy and Precision
    B. Test Set-up
    C. EPSs with Current Limits
    D. Power Factor
    E. Adaptive EPSs
    F. EPS Loading Points
    G. Energy Conservation Standards
    H. Indirect Operation EPSs
    I. Scope of Coverage
    1. Solid State Lighting
    2. Convert to Only One AC or DC Output Voltage at the Same Time
    3. Power over Ethernet
    4. Security or Life Safety Alarm or Surveillance Systems
    J. Sampling Plan
    K. Effective Date and Compliance Date of Test Procedure
    L. Impacts from the Test Procedure
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
    A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

[[Page 60997]]

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act'') sets forth 
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All 
references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American 
Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-
210 (Dec. 18, 2012).) Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons 
was re-designated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.'' External power 
supplies are among the products affected by these provisions.
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency 
of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA.

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE follows when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered 
products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test procedures 
prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed 
to produce test results which measure the energy efficiency, energy 
use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, when DOE determines that a test procedure requires 
amending, it publishes a notice with the proposed changes and offers 
the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(2)) As part of this process, DOE determines the extent to 
which, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured 
energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the 
existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that 
the amended test procedure would significantly alter the measured 
efficiency of a covered product, DOE would amend the applicable energy 
conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
    Section 135 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Pub. L. 
No. 109-58 (Aug. 8, 2005), amended sections 321 and 325 of EPCA by 
adding certain provisions related to external power supplies (EPSs). 
Among these provisions were new definitions defining what constitutes 
an EPS and a requirement that DOE prescribe ``definitions and test 
procedures for the power use of battery chargers and external power 
supplies.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A)) DOE complied with this 
requirement by publishing a test procedure final rule on December 8, 
2006, that, among other things, established a new appendix Z to subpart 
B of part 430 (``appendix Z'') to address the testing of EPSs to 
measure their energy efficiency and power consumption. See 71 FR 71340 
(codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z ``Uniform Test 
Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power 
Supplies'').
    Congress further amended EPCA's EPS provisions through its 
enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 
2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007). That law amended sections 
321, 323, and 325 of EPCA. These changes are noted below.
    Section 301 of EISA 2007 amended section 321 of EPCA by modifying 
the EPS-related definitions found in 42 U.S.C. 6291. While EPACT 2005 
defined an EPS as ``an external power supply circuit that is used to 
convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC 
current to operate a consumer product,'' \1\ 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A), 
section 301 of EISA 2007 further amended this definition by creating a 
subset of EPSs called Class A External Power Supplies. EISA 2007 
defined this subset of products as those EPSs that, in addition to 
meeting several other requirements common to all EPSs, are ``able to 
convert [line voltage AC] to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time'' 
and have ``nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 
watts.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) As part of these amendments, EISA 
2007 prescribed minimum standards for these products and directed DOE 
to publish a final rule by July 1, 2011, to determine whether to amend 
these standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The terms ``AC'' and ``DC'' refer to the polarity (i.e., 
direction) and amplitude of current and voltage associated with 
electrical power. For example, a household wall socket supplies 
alternating current (AC), which varies in amplitude and reverses 
polarity. In contrast, a battery or solar cell supplies direct 
current (DC), which is constant in both amplitude and polarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 310 of EISA 2007 amended section 325 of EPCA by defining 
the terms ``active mode,'' ``standby mode,'' and ``off mode.'' Each of 
these modes corresponds to the operational status of a given product--
i.e., whether it is (1) plugged into AC mains and switched ``on'' and 
performing its intended function, (2) plugged in but not performing its 
intended function (i.e., simply ``standing by'' to be operated), or (3) 
plugged in but switched ``off'' if a manual on-off switch is present. 
Section 310 also required DOE to amend its test procedures to ensure 
that standby and off mode energy consumption are measured. It also 
authorized DOE to amend, by rule, any of the definitions for active, 
standby, and off mode as long as the DOE considers the most current 
versions of Standards 62301 (``Household Electrical Appliances--
Measurement of Standby Power'') and 62087 (``Methods of Measurement for 
the Power Consumption of Audio, Video and Related Equipment'') of the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A) (incorporating EISA 2007 amendments related to standby 
and off mode energy). Consistent with these provisions, DOE issued a 
final rule that defined and added these terms and definitions to 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix Z (``appendix Z''). See 74 FR 13318 
(March 27, 2009).
    DOE further amended appendix Z by adding a test method for 
multiple-voltage EPSs. 76 FR 31750. The amendments also revised the 
definition of ``active power'' and clarified how to test EPSs that have 
a current-limiting function along with those devices that either (1) 
combine this function with the ability to communicate with their loads 
or (2) can communicate with their loads but without combining that 
capability with a current-limiting function. A current-limited EPS is 
one that can significantly lower its output voltage once an internal, 
output-current limit has been exceeded, while an EPS that communicates 
with its load refers to an EPS's ability to identify or otherwise 
exchange information with its load (i.e., the end-use product to which 
it is connected). These revisions were necessary to provide 
manufacturers with sufficient clarity on how to conduct the test and 
how to report the measured energy use for these types of EPSs.
    After releasing a preliminary analysis and issuing a proposed set 
of energy

[[Page 60998]]

conservation standards, DOE published a final rule prescribing new 
standards for non-Class A EPSs and amended standards for some Class A 
EPSs. See 79 FR 7845 (Feb. 20, 2014). Manufacturers of the affected 
products must meet these standards by 2016.
    Since the publication of those standards, DOE has received follow-
up questions and requests for clarification regarding the testing of 
EPSs. To ensure that manufacturers have sufficient clarity regarding 
the testing of their products, particularly in light of the fact that 
they will soon be required to certify those products as being compliant 
with the new standards, DOE is proposing to make certain clarifications 
to appendix Z to eliminate any testing ambiguity when measuring the 
efficiency of an EPS. These proposed changes would update references to 
the latest version of IEC 62301 and clarify DOE's test methods to 
better reflect evolving technologies.

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    This proposal seeks to make several changes to the current test 
procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of EPSs.
    First, it would harmonize DOE's test procedure with the latest 
version of IEC 62301 by providing specific resolution and measurement 
tolerances. These specifications will assist in ensuring that testing 
is performed with equipment that is capable of reaching these 
tolerances and that the resulting measurements are consistent.
    Second, the proposal would define and clarify how to test adaptive 
EPSs (also referred to as ``adaptive-charging'', ``smart-charging'' or 
``quick-charging'' EPSs). Because these types of EPSs were not 
considered when the current test procedure was first adopted, Appendix 
Z does not provide the means to address the unique characteristics of 
these types of EPSs fully and consistently without the addition of 
certain clarifications that DOE is proposing. These proposed 
clarifications will provide a standardized method for all manufacturers 
and testing laboratories to follow when testing an adaptive EPS.
    Third, DOE is proposing to add test configurations that can be used 
to avoid potential losses caused by testing cables. Appendix Z does not 
clearly outline how multiple measurement devices that operate 
simultaneously should be connected to a unit under test (UUT). These 
changes would remove the potential for electrical energy losses in the 
measurement cables and guarantee accurate, repeatable, and reproducible 
results.
    Fourth, DOE would clarify that when testing an EPS that is 
incapable of being tested at one or more of the loading conditions used 
to calculate the average active-mode efficiency, such conditions will 
be omitted when calculating this metric. Instead, the average active-
mode efficiency will be determined by averaging the efficiency results 
at each of the loading conditions that can be measured.
    Fifth, the proposal would add an optional procedure for measuring 
the active-mode efficiency of a unit under test that would occur at the 
10 percent loading condition to gain a broader understanding of EPS 
efficiency at low load levels and increase the flexibility of the test 
procedure. Adding this optional provision would enable DOE, 
manufacturers, and testing labs to gain familiarity with the 
measurement of this additional loading point. This additional condition 
would affect both single-voltage and multiple-voltage EPSs but would 
not be used for purposes of calculating the average active-mode 
efficiency that a manufacturer must report for compliance purposes. 
Reporting of the test results of this loading condition also would not 
be required as part of the compliance certification. It may, however, 
be used in helping develop future EPS energy conservation standards 
should DOE decide that amending these standards would meet the 
statutory requirements.
    Sixth, DOE is proposing to add a provision to permit the optional 
recording of power factor during testing. Power factor is a measurement 
of the transfer of electrical power to a given device--with a higher 
power factor signaling a more efficient system for delivering real 
power and a lower power factor pointing to a less efficient one. Adding 
this optional measurement would assist DOE in its understanding of EPS 
efficiency on a system level. In the case of an EPS, a lower power 
factor in a given design mainly impacts the amount of transmission line 
loss within the building where the EPS is operating. By recording the 
power factor at each load condition, manufacturers may be willing to 
provide DOE with more data regarding how these losses may impact the 
total efficiency profile of an EPS. This additional information, 
similar to the data obtained through the use of the additional loading 
point data noted above, could be used by the agency in subsequent 
rulemakings to help craft a more precise and accurate means of 
evaluating EPS efficiency that will enable manufacturers to produce 
more effective and efficient EPSs while ensuring that consumer needs 
continue to be met. By adding this optional provision, manufacturers, 
DOE, and testing labs will also gain familiarity with measuring and 
recording this element during testing.
    Seventh, DOE is proposing to add clarifying language to the EPS 
standards published in Sec.  430.32 (``Energy and water conservation 
standards and their compliance dates''). DOE believes that further 
detail is necessary to help clarify which standards apply to each type 
of EPS. To this end, DOE proposes to insert a summary table to enable 
one to more readily identify which standards apply to which type of 
EPS. While these revisions will not affect either the current or 
February 2016 EPS standards, they will aid manufacturers in complying 
with the new regulations.
    Finally, DOE is proposing to expand the scope of its sampling plan 
for Class A EPSs to apply to those that will be subject to standards 
for the first time in 2016. DOE is proposing these revisions to 
consolidate all EPSs within the scope of federal standards under one 
sampling plan and to provide manufacturers with the necessary 
procedures they will need to follow when certifying their EPSs as 
compliant with the applicable standards. Previously, DOE only provided 
a sampling plan for Class A EPSs and reserved a second sampling plan 
for non-Class A EPSs. By adopting a single sampling plan that would 
apply to all EPSs, DOE would be creating a single approach for ensuring 
that a given EPS basic model complies with the applicable standards.

 Table II.1--Summary of Proposed Changes and Affected Sections of 10 CFR
                                Part 430
 [Appendix Z to subpart B of part 430--uniform test method for measuring
           the energy consumption of external power supplies]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Existing section in 10 CFR part
                430                       Summary of modifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Scope..........................   No Change.
2. Definitions....................   Inserting definitions for
                                     ``average active-mode efficiency''
                                     and ``adaptive external power
                                     supply''.

[[Page 60999]]

 
3. Test Apparatus and General        Insert exceptions to the
 Instructions.                       test method of 3(a) within
                                     subsections 3(a)(i) and 3(a)(ii).
                                     Incorporate by reference
                                     the uncertainty and resolution
                                     requirements of the IEC 62301 (2nd
                                     Ed.) standard in 3(a)(i)(A).
4. Test Measurement...............   Modify 4(a)(i) to include a
                                     table of the required loading
                                     conditions and an additional
                                     optional loading point at a 10
                                     percent loading condition
                                     Insert an optional power
                                     factor measurement at each loading
                                     condition in 4(a)(i).
                                     Clarify the necessary
                                     connections when using multiple
                                     measurement devices (4(a)(i)).
                                     Clarify how to test when
                                     one or more loading conditions
                                     cannot be sustained (4(a)(i)(B)).
                                     Modify 4(a)(ii) to refer to
                                     the appropriate loading conditions
                                     in Table 1.
                                     Modify several sections of
                                     4(b)(i) to refer to an updated
                                     Table 2.
                                     Revising 4(b)(i)(A)(5) to
                                     refer to a new Table 2, which
                                     contains a list of prescribed
                                     loading conditions to use,
                                     including a new 10 percent loading
                                     condition.
                                     Modify 4(b)(ii) to refer to
                                     the updated loading conditions in
                                     new Table 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

A. Measurement Accuracy and Precision

    On June 13, 2005, the IEC published its first edition of testing 
standard IEC 62301, which provided a method for measuring standby power 
of household appliances. The standard quantified minimum resolution 
requirements for energy measurement instruments and outlined the 
necessary procedures to ensure stable energy readings for any unit 
under test (UUT). The standard also set limits on the uncertainties 
associated with any measurement taken that is meant to represent the 
energy consumption of a household device. It has since become 
recognized by many regulatory bodies as the default guideline for any 
power or energy measurement required for formal certification. DOE 
subsequently adopted instrumentation resolution and measurement 
uncertainty requirements identical to those in the IEC 62301 standard 
and codified these requirements at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix Z on 
June 1, 2011. 76 FR 31750.
    The IEC published Edition 2.0 of IEC 62301 in January 2011. This 
revised version of the testing standard refined the test equipment 
specifications, measuring techniques, and uncertainty determination to 
improve the method for measuring loads with high crest factors and/or 
low power factors, such as the low power modes typical of EPSs 
operating in no-load mode. These provisions were contained in Section 4 
of IEC 62301, with informative guidance provided in Annex B and Annex D 
on measuring low power modes and determining measurement uncertainty.
    To ease the overall burden involved with the testing of EPSs, and 
to continue to improve DOE's efforts at harmonizing its testing 
requirements where feasible to do so, DOE is proposing to incorporate 
by reference the second edition of IEC 62301 for the application of 
testing EPS energy consumption. This proposed action would include the 
resolution parameters for power measurements and uncertainty 
methodologies found in Section 4 (General conditions for measurements) 
as well as the associated references to Annexes B (Notes on the 
measurement of low power modes) and D (Determination of uncertainty of 
measurement) within that section of the second edition of the IEC 62301 
standard. DOE seeks comment on the merits of incorporating these 
revisions into the current EPS test procedure in appendix Z.

B. Test Set-up

    DOE had previously proposed, and ultimately finalized, requirements 
in 2006 that incorporated by reference certain sections of a test 
procedure adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) into 
appendix Z. See generally, 71 FR 71339 (Dec. 8, 2006) (final rule 
incorporating elements of the CEC test procedure for EPSs). That 
procedure--``Test Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 
Single-Voltage External AC-DC and AC-AC Power Supplies (August 11, 
2004)''--contained a number of provisions, including one (``Measurement 
Approach'') that outlined how UUTs should be conditioned and connected 
to metering equipment to perform the test properly regardless of the 
type of load. While this provision generally describes the testing set-
up to follow, it also contains gaps that could lead to ambiguous 
results when testing an EPS. In particular, the procedure does not 
specify how to connect metering equipment in certain EPS 
configurations.
    As described in section 4 (``General Conditions for Measurement'') 
of the CEC procedure, power measurements can be made using either power 
analyzers or suitably calibrated voltmeters and ammeters. When using 
voltmeters and ammeters, the active-mode efficiency at each loading 
condition can be calculated using the output voltage measurement from 
the voltmeter and the output current measurement from the ammeter. DOE 
has found that resistive losses can be inadvertently introduced into 
the test set-up, which can affect the results and the overall 
calculated average, active load efficiency. These losses would not 
occur when using an EPS to power an end-use product. They do occur, 
however, if the voltmeter and ammeter are not physically and 
electrically connected to the output terminal of the EPS. Specifically, 
lower voltage measurements can result when connecting the voltmeter 
after the series ammeter connection as opposed to physically and 
electrically connecting the voltmeter directly to the output. Although, 
in theory, the ammeter acts as a dead short (i.e., a short circuit 
having zero resistance) and does not introduce electrical resistance 
during the measurement, in practice, the testing leads can introduce 
resistive losses that vary based on, among other factors, the wire 
gauge of the leads, the length of the leads, and the frequency of the 
signal being measured. At higher current loads, these losses become 
even more pronounced and can lead to significant resistive losses 
within the signal path despite the low impedance nature of ammeters. 
The existence of these losses results in an inaccurate output power 
calculation (and inaccurate efficiency measurements) under all loading 
conditions, as the voltmeter measures a lower voltage than the EPS is 
actually producing.

[[Page 61000]]

    To illustrate this point, DOE tested a single EPS unit using two 
different testing configurations. In the ``loss- producing'' (or 
``lossy'') configuration, DOE used a voltmeter to measure the voltage 
at the load after the ammeter measurement using 10 AWG \2\ banana cable 
interconnects rated for 10 amps and 600 volts. This testing setup 
resulted in significantly lower efficiency measurements across all 
loading conditions than the ``lossless'' configuration where the 
voltage was measured at the output connector of the EPS. As expected, 
the difference in the efficiency measurements was even more pronounced 
as the current load was increased. The results comparing the two 
different testing configurations are summarized in Table III-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ American Wire Gauge (AWG) is a standardized wire gauge 
system to quantify the diameter of electrically conducting wire.

                              Table III-1--EPS Efficiency Testing Variation Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Average
                                         25% Load       50% Load       75% Load      100% Load      active-mode
                                                                                                    efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SETUP #1* (LOSS-PRODUCING):
    Input Power (W).................         10.37          20.57          30.89          41.36   ..............
    Output Voltage (V)..............         11.69          11.12          10.37           9.83   ..............
    Output Current (A)..............          0.75           1.5            2.25           3      ..............
    Efficiency......................         84.5%          81.1%          75.5%          71.3%            78.1%
SETUP #2* (LOSSLESS):
    Input Power (W).................         10.37          20.57          30.89          41.36   ..............
    Output Voltage (V)..............         12.01          11.85          11.6           11.53   ..............
    Output Current (A)..............          0.75           1.5            2.25           3      ..............
    Efficiency......................         86.9%          86.4%          84.5%          83.6%            85.3%
      Difference....................          2.3%           5.3%           9.0%          12.3%             7.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All testing results are based on the results collected from a 12V, 3A external power supply.

    DOE believes that most technicians are already setting up their 
test equipment to connect directly to the output to avoid these 
resistance losses. However, based on the test results presented in 
Table III-1 and because the CEC test method does not specifically 
explain how to attach measurement equipment, DOE believes that 
additional details on how to set up the test equipment should be 
provided to ensure such losses are not introduced.
    Accordingly, DOE proposes to amend section 4(a)(i) of appendix Z to 
require that any equipment necessary to measure the active-mode 
efficiency of a UUT at a specific loading condition must be connected 
directly to the output cable of the unit. This step will remove any 
unintended losses in the test measurement introduced by the metering 
equipment because both meters will be measuring directly from the 
output connector of the EPS rather than at different points in the 
signal path. DOE seeks comment on whether these additional 
clarifications regarding the testing set-up when using voltmeters and 
ammeters would help to clarify the test method and ensure testing 
accuracy.

C. EPSs With Current Limits

    The EPS test procedure produces five output values that are used to 
determine whether a tested EPS complies with Federal standards. These 
output values (or metrics) are outlined in sections 4(a)(i) and 
5(b)(i)(A)(5) of appendix Z and include active-mode efficiency 
measurements at 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent 
load, as well as the total power consumption of an EPS at 0 percent 
load. The four loaded efficiencies (i.e., 25 percent through 100 
percent) are averaged to determine the overall EPS conversion 
efficiency. This average efficiency can be compared to the federal 
standard, which is an equation that determines the minimum required 
efficiency based on the nameplate output power of the EPS under 
consideration. However, some EPSs, like those used for radios and LED 
applications, are designed to drive the output voltage to zero under 
specific loading conditions either to protect the EPS from damage, or 
overstress, or because the end-use application was never designed to 
operate in those states. Thus, it is not possible to measure the 
efficiency at these specific loading conditions. (This type of feature 
or technology is commonly referred to as ``output-current-limiting'' or 
``current-limiting'' because of the device's actions to limit the 
output current to the connected device that the EPS serves.) Prior to 
the publication of the June 2011 test procedure final rule, DOE 
solicited comments from interested parties concerning how to test EPSs 
that utilize output-current-limiting techniques at 100 percent load 
using the test procedure in appendix Z. 75 FR at 16973. Based on the 
comments received and to ensure that these types of EPSs could be 
tested for compliance with the federal standards, DOE amended section 
4(a)(i) to allow manufacturers with products that limit the output 
current at 100 percent load to test and certify affected individual 
units using active-mode efficiencies measured at 25 percent, 50 
percent, and 75 percent loads. 76 FR at 31771.
    Since these amendments were made, DOE has become aware of other EPS 
designs, specifically those that operate LED drivers, which employ 
current-limiting circuitry at loading conditions under 100 percent as a 
form of fault protection and reset. These EPSs will drive the output 
voltage down to zero to eliminate any power delivery when the end-use 
product demands less than a certain percentage of the nameplate output 
current. Once the output has been reduced to zero, the EPS will 
periodically check the output load conditions by momentarily 
reestablishing the nameplate output voltage and monitoring the 
resulting current draw. If the minimum output current is not reached 
during these periods, the output is driven to zero again and the EPS 
output power drops to zero. This technique is commonly referred to as 
``hiccup protection'' and it serves to protect both the EPS and the 
end-use product from damage if the product begins to operate in a range 
outside its intended design. Additionally, hiccup protection can be 
used to minimize energy consumption

[[Page 61001]]

by quickly putting the EPS into a standby state if the end-use product 
requires only a constant current load to operate and the current demand 
falls below the minimum current load threshold. Similar to EPSs that 
limit output current at maximum load, these EPSs cannot be tested and 
certified properly under the current DOE test procedure when testing at 
a 25 percent load. At this loading condition, EPSs with hiccup 
protection that are designed for lower load conditions would not 
provide any output power to measure efficiency.
    To quantify the active-mode efficiency of these EPSs, DOE proposes 
to amend section 4(a)(i)(C) of appendix Z (which includes a procedure 
to test those EPSs that list both an instantaneous and continuous 
output current) to require that in cases where an EPS cannot sustain 
output at one or more of the four loading conditions, these loading 
conditions would not be measured. Instead, for these EPSs, the average 
efficiency would be the average of the loading conditions for which it 
can sustain output. In addition to this provision, DOE proposes to 
define the ``average active-mode efficiency'' of an EPS as the average 
of the loading conditions (100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 
percent of its nameplate output current) for which the EPS can sustain 
the output current. Defining average active mode efficiency will assist 
manufacturers in preparing certification reports and provide additional 
clarity as to which metrics are considered for compliance with the 
current federal standards. By including the necessary loading points 
within the definition, there will be a clearer distinction between the 
outputs of the test procedure and the data points required for 
certification. DOE seeks comment on the benefits or burdens of 
representing the average active-mode efficiency of these devices as the 
average of the efficiencies at the loading conditions that can be 
tested and on the proposed definition for average active mode 
efficiency. Among the issues of interest to DOE is what impact, if any, 
the proposed changes would have on the results from testing and whether 
the proposed changes would resolve the identified issues.

D. Power Factor

    Power factor is a relative measure of transmission losses between 
the power plant and an item plugged into AC mains (i.e., a wall 
outlet). Due to nonlinear and energy-storage circuit elements such as 
diodes and inductors, electrical products often draw currents that are 
not proportional to the line voltage. These currents are either 
distorted or out of phase in relation to the line voltage, resulting in 
no active power drawn by the EPS or transmitted to the load.
    However, although the EPS itself consumes no active power, these 
currents are real and cause power dissipation from conduction losses in 
the transmission and distribution wiring, which is referred to as 
reactive power. The power factor of a given device is represented as a 
ratio of the active power delivered to the device relative to the 
combination of this reactive power and active power. An ideal load will 
have a power factor of 1, where all the power generated is delivered to 
the load as active power. For a given nameplate output power and 
efficiency, products with a lower power factor cause greater power 
dissipation in the transmission wiring, an effect that also becomes 
more pronounced at higher input powers.
    As the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted in its 
primer on additional energy efficiency opportunities for EPSs, a device 
with a power factor of 0.4 draws 2.5 times more current than a device 
with a power factor of 1 and can cause building wire losses to be 6.25 
times greater in the worst case scenario.\3\ In this scenario, the 
amount of electricity required by the device is far greater than the 
real (i.e., active) power delivered, resulting in poor system 
efficiency. The significance of power factor's role in overall energy 
consumption has also been recognized by the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). Its voluntary ENERGY STAR program previously included 
provisions that restricted the minimum power factor at 100 percent load 
for EPSs with nameplate output powers greater than or equal to 100 
watts,\4\ which helped to reduce I\2\R (i.e., electrical resistance) 
losses in building distribution wiring as part of their efficiency 
program for EPSs. These provisions also aligned with version 4 of the 
EPA's prior program requirements for internal computer power supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NRDC: External Power Supplies--Additional Efficiency 
Opportunities, http://www.appliance-standards.org/sites/default/files/Next_Efficiency_Opportunities_for_External_Power_Supplies_NRDC.pdf
    \4\ EPA: ENERGY STAR[supreg] Program Requirements for Single 
Voltage External AC-DC and AC-AC Power Supplies Eligibility Criteria 
(Version 2.0), http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/eps_spec_v2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has acknowledged the grid-level impact of power factor when it 
comes to EPS design, but stated that it would be difficult to 
accurately quantify transmission losses because they would depend on 
the length of the transmission wires, which differ for each residential 
consumer. See 79 FR at 7869. However, DOE believes that power factor is 
a critical component in establishing the overall efficiency profile of 
EPSs. Most of the efficient power supplies available on the market 
today use switched-mode topologies (i.e., power transfer circuits that 
use switching elements and electromagnetic fields to transmit power) 
that draw current in short spikes from the power grid. These current 
spikes can cause the voltage and current input waveforms of the EPS to 
be significantly out of phase, resulting in a low power factor and 
putting more stress on the power grid to deliver real power. While 
switched-mode power supplies have served to dramatically improve the 
achievable efficiencies of EPSs, the fact that power factor has gone 
unexamined during their widespread adoption has brought overall system 
efficiency into consideration. Therefore, DOE believes that in order to 
capture a representative average use cycle for EPSs, power factor 
should be taken into consideration at each loading condition. However, 
at this time DOE is proposing to make power factor measurements 
optional within the test procedure and will not require any power 
factor measurements recorded during testing to be submitted in any 
certification report. Modifying the test procedure in this way will 
increase testing flexibility with minimal additional testing burden 
should technicians choose to conduct the additional measurements, as 
most modern power analyzers are capable of measuring true power factor. 
Because DOE requires direct meter readings of input and output power at 
each loading condition, the power factor at each loading condition can 
be collected at the same time as the efficiency measurements with 
virtually no added test time or equipment. However, DOE also recognizes 
the variability associated with measuring power factor. EPSs that lack 
any sort of corrective power factor circuitry can have varying power 
factors depending on the conditions surrounding the transmission lines 
in the testing area as well as the input impedance. These variables 
could affect the repeatability of any power factor measurements in EPSs 
that do not contain corrective circuitry. As such, DOE is seeking 
comment on the impacts and testing burdens related to including 
optional power factor measurements at each loading condition as well as 
any potential pitfalls related to repeatability in EPSs without power 
factor correction.

[[Page 61002]]

E. Adaptive EPSs

    DOE is proposing that EPSs capable of adjusting their output 
voltage be tested at both the highest and lowest output voltage for 
loading conditions where output current is greater than 0% (currently, 
loading conditions 1 to 4). For the 0% loading condition (currently, 
loading condition 5), DOE is proposing to add clarifying language 
stating that the EPS under test be placed in no-load mode and any 
additional signal connections to the unit be disconnected prior to 
measuring input power. Several considerations led DOE to propose this 
particular approach.
    The newly amended Federal efficiency standards for EPSs determine 
the minimum mandatory average active-mode efficiency for an EPS using a 
series of equations and the product's nameplate output power. 79 FR at 
7848-7849. Typically, an EPS will have a nameplate output voltage, 
nameplate output power, and/or a nameplate output current listed so 
that, among other reasons, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) can 
utilize them as off-the-shelf designs for their products. DOE uses 
these metrics to determine the necessary loading conditions for testing 
and ultimately how to determine the average active-mode efficiency and 
no-load power measurement of the EPS. The average active-mode 
efficiency is calculated by determining the average of the efficiencies 
measured at loading conditions of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% of the rated 
nameplate output current (loading conditions 1 to 4). No-load mode 
power is equal to the active input power at the loading condition which 
is 0% of nameplate output current (currently referred to as loading 
condition 5).
    As was noted in chapter 11 of the technical support document (TSD) 
to the standards final rule for EPSs published on February 10, 2014, 
one of the largest applications of EPSs within the consumer marketplace 
is in portable computing devices, such as tablets and mobile phones. 
Since the publication of the final rule, DOE has become aware of a new 
charging technology where EPSs designed around the current universal 
charging solution (UCS) utilize a specific communication protocol with 
their end-use devices to draw higher charging currents than the 
universal serial bus (USB) standard specifies when the battery is 
significantly depleted. This technology enables the use of a faster 
charging rate, which effectively decreases the overall charging time 
needed to replenish the discharged battery. In many cases, this means 
increasing the output voltage as well as the output power of the EPS to 
recharge a deeply discharged battery within the end-use product. This 
technique is commonly referred to as ``quick charging'' or ``adaptive 
charging'', but manufacturers may refer to this charging methodology in 
several different ways.
    DOE's current understanding is that the faster charge rate only 
occurs when the communication protocol between the EPS and the device 
is activated, which could not occur via a user-initiated action because 
the user is not given access to change the charging rate. Instead, 
charging is activated through communication lines between the charger 
and the charge control chip embedded in the end-use device. The user 
remains unaware of this communication for the duration of the charge. 
Only certain products paired with the necessary chargers will be able 
to communicate and have the EPS provide higher charging current, 
whereas the same charger would provide a lower charging current when 
paired with a device not capable of this communication. Provided that 
these EPSs would produce only one output voltage at a time, they would 
be considered single-voltage EPSs and not multiple voltage EPSs under 
the definitions established for single-voltage and multiple-voltage 
EPSs in appendix Z. However, DOE proposes to further classify these 
types of EPSs in appendix Z as ``adaptive external power supplies'' and 
define them as single-voltage external power supplies that can alter 
their output voltage during active mode based on an established 
communication protocol with the end-use application without any user-
generated action. DOE is seeking comment on whether the proposed 
definition of an adaptive external power supply accurately describes 
this new type of EPS and on any potential improvements that could be 
made to the proposed definition to eliminate any ambiguities.
    While DOE previously examined the issue of EPSs that communicate 
with their loads in its June 1, 2011 rule, only recently has it been 
made aware that proprietary communication protocols can result in a 
higher power consumption for certain end-use consumer products rather 
than others. 76 FR at 31752-31753 and 31770-31771. Additionally, DOE 
believes that manufacturers may list multiple output voltages, multiple 
output currents, and/or multiple output powers to categorize all the 
potential states of the EPS, making the correct testing and 
certification conditions difficult to discern. Such an EPS may provide 
the standard USB protocol ratings of 5 volts at 1 amp, but have the 
capability to elevate the charging voltage to 12 volts at 1 amp under 
the right conditions. This is only one practical example because 
manufacturers can tailor their communication protocols to generate 
multiple voltage, ampere, and output power ranges under different 
operating conditions for these types of EPSs. While these varying 
states may result in faster charging and increased utility, the 
technology makes testing and quantifying the average active-mode 
efficiencies of these devices difficult.
    DOE is seeking input regarding how adaptive EPSs should be tested 
and certified. Specifically, DOE is seeking input on how to determine 
the loading conditions in which to test these EPSs. Since adaptive EPSs 
can be used to power other devices that are not capable of 
communicating with a load, it is important to consider the efficiency 
of the EPS when load-communicating does not occur. However, when the 
EPS communicates with a load and varies the output voltage or current 
to decrease an end-use product's charging time, the test procedure 
should be able to capture the efficiencies at the various output 
conditions in which it will operate. This could be performed by 
conducting the test twice at each loading condition--once at the 
highest achievable output voltage that is utilized while communicating 
with a load and once at the lowest achievable output voltage utilized 
during load communication regardless of what may be stated on the 
nameplate in both conditions. Due to the nature of EPS design, the 
points in between the highest and lowest output voltage will be no less 
efficient than either extreme.\5\ Therefore, DOE proposes to test 
adaptive EPSs at both the highest and lowest voltage it can achieve at 
all measured loading conditions with output current greater than 0%. 
DOE has been informed by stakeholders that these adaptive EPSs will 
either have multiple voltage and current ranges printed on the 
nameplate or may not indicate the operating ranges at all. However, DOE 
seeks comment on whether the range of voltages utilized while an EPS is 
communicating with its load is printed on the EPS nameplate or if there 
are other methods available to determine the highest and lowest voltage 
utilized during load

[[Page 61003]]

communication, if it is not indicated on the nameplate of the EPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ At higher output voltages, EPSs typically have greater 
efficiency due to a lower loss ratio of the fixed voltage drops in 
the conversion circuitry to the nominal output voltage. These losses 
do not increase linearly with output voltage, so higher output 
voltages typically provide greater conversion efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also has concerns regarding the accuracy and repeatability of 
no-load measurements recorded when testing an adaptive EPS. As part of 
the test procedure, DOE requires that an input power measurement taken 
at the 0 percent loading condition (currently, loading condition 5) is 
measured and recorded as no-load mode power consumption. Appendix Z 
defines no-load mode as the mode of operation when an EPS is connected 
to the main electricity supply and the output is (or ``all outputs 
are'' for a multiple-voltage EPS) not connected to a load (or ``loads'' 
for a multiple-voltage EPS). However, the test procedure for single-
voltage EPSs does not instruct technicians to explicitly remove any 
external loads or to put the EPS into ``no-load mode'' in order to 
conduct the test at a 0% loading condition. The language in the test 
procedure only states that the load must be decreased to zero percent 
and the AC input power must be recorded. This ambiguity would permit 
the test to be conducted by either removing the load in order to 
achieve the 0% loading condition or decreasing the current demand to 0% 
while the test load is still physically connected. As such, variability 
in test measurements may arise when testing adaptive EPSs because the 
output voltage fluctuates according to the communication between the 
EPS and the end-use product.
    Based on its examination of a variety of adaptive EPSs and their 
accompanying end-use products, DOE suspects that if the load is not 
disconnected from the EPS entirely, but instead, the current demand is 
decreased to zero electronically with the load still physically 
connected, that the output voltage may remain artificially high and 
impact the results of the no-load power measurement. This higher output 
voltage would not be representative of the voltage this EPS would 
operate under in no-load mode, because an adaptive EPS would only 
output a higher voltage when requested via the adaptive communication 
protocol.
    To clarify the testing methodology for all types of EPSs in no-load 
mode, DOE is proposing to add language to the single-voltage test 
procedure stating that any EPS under test must be placed into no-load 
mode and any additional single connection be disconnected before taking 
a measurement at zero percent load. While this language is absent from 
the single-voltage EPS test procedure, DOE notes that the test 
procedure at appendix Z already specifically states in section 
4(b)(i)(A)(6) that any multiple-voltage EPS under test should be placed 
in no-load mode and any additional signal connections to the unit be 
disconnected before measuring input power at the zero percent loading 
condition. DOE is seeking comment on whether such additional 
clarification is also warranted for testing the no-load of single-
voltage EPSs, including adaptive EPSs.
    The additional clarifications DOE is proposing in this NOPR for 
testing adaptive EPSs will not alter the current methodology for 
testing active-mode efficiency or no-load power. Rather, they are meant 
to provide guidance on how to test and certify these EPSs given the 
recent advancements in EPS technology. The average active-mode 
efficiency will still be based on the average of the four loading 
conditions used to measure single-voltage efficiency. Under DOE's 
proposal, manufacturers of adaptive EPSs will generate two average 
active-mode efficiency metrics for each EPS--one based on the average 
of the efficiencies recorded at the lowest voltage achieved during the 
charging cycle and one based on the average of the efficiencies 
recorded at the highest voltage achieved during the charging cycle. 
This testing approach closely parallels DOE's testing approach for 
switch-selectable EPSs. However, unlike switch-selectable EPSs, DOE is 
requiring only one no-load power measurement because the EPS will be 
disconnected from any load during the measurement and will, as a 
result, not be communicating--thereby removing any chance of raising or 
lowering the output voltage. Because this approach will yield a static 
output voltage in no-load mode, one no-load power measurement for 
adaptive EPSs will be sufficient. As a result, DOE proposes to amend 10 
CFR 429.37 to state that manufacturers will be required to submit 
average active-mode efficiencies at both the highest and lowest output 
voltages as well as a single no-load power measurement for adaptive 
EPSs. DOE is seeking comment on the most appropriate method to report 
and certify adaptive EPSs.

F. EPS Loading Points

    DOE currently requires that efficiency measurements be recorded by 
manufacturers at 0 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 
percent of the nameplate output current load. See 10 CFR 430, subpart 
B, appendix Z. The last four measurements are averaged to determine the 
overall active-mode efficiency of an EPS. While these measurements span 
the majority of an EPS's loading profile, consumer loads are 
increasingly utilizing standby modes to minimize power consumption 
during periods of inactivity, a development that has resulted in many 
EPSs spending more time in loading conditions below 25 percent where 
the EPS active-mode efficiency tends to rapidly decrease due to the 
increase in the ratio of fixed losses to the output power. This 
decrease is due in large part to a higher loss ratio where the fixed 
losses represent a higher percentage of the overall power consumed when 
compared to the output power.
    Regarding these lower load states, NRDC noted that industry has 
already performed significant research to improve the conversion 
efficiency of EPSs at these states.\6\ As part of its research, NRDC 
compared a standard computer EPS complying with the Level V 
requirements of the international efficiency marking protocol against a 
reference design from a major power supply integrated circuit 
manufacturer. While the computer EPS and the reference design remained 
relatively similar across all the loading points considered in the DOE 
test procedure (i.e., 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%), the EPSs diverged 
significantly below 25 percent load. The reference design showed as 
much as a 25 percent increase in active-mode efficiency over the 
computer EPS at loads below those required by the EPS test procedure. 
While this is just one example, DOE has also been informed by 
interested parties and during manufacturer interviews that the industry 
aims to prevent the energy gains made by smarter consumer loads from 
being offset by EPS designs that cannot maintain flatter efficiency 
profiles over the full load range. Again, as noted by the NRDC, 
consumer products are increasingly spending a significant portion of 
their operating time in lower power modes or standby states where the 
EPS load-demand is below 25 percent. Since EPS efficiency tends to fall 
off at these lower loads, improving the active-mode efficiency of EPSs 
at loading points below 25 percent to levels similar to the achievable 
efficiencies at higher loading points would create a more constant 
efficiency level, regardless of the load demand. This approach will 
ensure that the overall system remains efficient when consumer loads 
fall below a 25 percent load rather than relying on an inefficient EPS 
that hampers system efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NRDC: External Power Supplies--Additional Efficiency 
Opportunities, http://www.appliance-standards.org/sites/default/files/Next_Efficiency_Opportunities_for_External_Power_Supplies_NRDC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other standards-setting bodies have recognized the potential energy 
savings

[[Page 61004]]

from reducing lower-load losses. Significantly, on October 29, 2013, 
the European Union published Version 5 of its Code of Conduct on Energy 
Efficiency of External Power Supplies (Code of Conduct).\7\ That 
document lays out the foundation for a set of voluntary guidelines for 
individual manufacturers to meet and includes specifications regarding 
EPS coverage, energy efficiency, and monitoring provisions. The energy 
efficiency levels in the Code of Conduct have been revised to reflect 
the same four loading point measurements required by DOE, but also 
include a separately calculated performance level using an additional 
loading point at a lower 10 percent load. See European Comm'n, Code of 
Conduct on Energy Efficiency of External Power Supplies, Version 5, 
Annex (Oct. 29, 2013). The energy efficiency provisions are further 
divided into two groupings--Tier 1 and Tier 2. These tiers delineate 
two separate sets of standards with two unique effective dates. Tier 1 
went into effect in January 2014, while the more stringent standards in 
Tier 2 will take effect in January 2016. Like DOE's test procedure at 
Appendix Z, the new Code of Conduct provides that manufacturers measure 
the efficiency at each loading condition along with a no-load power 
consumption metric in accordance with the CEC's test procedure for 
single voltage EPSs. Also like appendix Z, the Code of Conduct's 
prescribed energy efficiency levels at the specified five loading 
points for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 rely on equations that generate a 
minimum average active-mode efficiency based on the nameplate output 
power of an EPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ European Union: Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies 
Version 5 (available at http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/code_of_conduct_for_ps_version_5_-_draft_120919.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the revised Code of Conduct includes the additional 
loading point measurement at 10% load, this data point is not included 
when calculating the average active-mode efficiency of a given EPS. 
Instead, the Code of Conduct continues to rely on the four loading 
points on which DOE's standards are based--i.e., 25%, 50%, 75%, and 
100% load--for this metric. The Code of Conduct sets a separate 
performance standard at 10% load, but, like DOE, relies on an equation 
based on the nameplate output power of an EPS to determine the minimum 
applicable standard at this loading point.
    Based on the research conducted by NRDC and the efforts of the 
European Commission to improve light load efficiency, additional energy 
savings opportunities for EPSs may be possible given the increase in 
low-power states in smart devices. In order to increase the flexibility 
of the EPS test procedure should DOE decide to incorporate such a 
measurement into an efficiency standard in the future, DOE proposes to 
add a sixth, optional, loading condition at 10 percent of the nameplate 
output current to the EPS test procedure. Similar to the power factor 
measurements, recording the active-mode efficiency at this loading 
condition would be optional and would not be part of the mandatory 
submissions on any certification report. Data voluntarily gathered by 
manufacturers at this additional loading point could serve to inform 
DOE on the current efficiency landscape of EPSs below 25 percent load 
while also attempting to harmonize with the efforts of the European 
Commission.
    While DOE is proposing to add this new, but optional, 10% loading 
point to the test procedure, DOE is not proposing to use this new 
loading condition as part of the calculation of average-active mode 
efficiency should manufacturers decide to record the active-mode 
efficiency at the new loading condition. The average-active mode 
efficiency metric will continue to be calculated by averaging the 
efficiencies at the 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% loading conditions. In the 
future, DOE may consider whether future revisions to the energy 
conservation standards for EPSs should include the efficiency at the 
new loading condition either as part of the calculation of average 
active-mode efficiency or as a separate independent standard. This 
proposed change will have no impact on measuring compliance with the 
current energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs or the recently 
promulgated standards for direct operation EPSs that manufacturers must 
meet beginning in 2016.
    No additional testing burden would be placed on manufacturers as a 
result of this proposed change because the 10% loading condition test 
is optional. However, should manufacturers elect to make this 
measurement, DOE believes the additional testing burden would be 
minimal. Measuring the efficiency at this new loading point would 
require no additional equipment. The tester would only have to adjust 
the resistive or electronic load to the correct conditions. This 
additional test would increase the overall testing time by no more than 
ten minutes even after adhering to the given minute stability criteria 
at the new load condition. Because DOE only requires direct meter 
readings to record the measurements, testing at this additional loading 
condition would have a minimal increase in burden and duration of the 
test. DOE seeks comment on the benefits and burdens of adding an 
additional loading condition to the EPS test procedure as an optional 
measurement. The other loading conditions will remain the same as has 
been previously stated under this proposal.

G. Energy Conservation Standards

    On February 10, 2014, DOE issued new and amended standards for 
EPSs; compliance with these standards is required by February 10, 2016. 
79 FR 7845. These new standards will require many EPSs already subject 
to standards as Class A EPSs to meet more stringent requirements. 
Additionally, the new regulations established efficiency standards for 
some types of EPSs, such as multiple-voltage and high power EPSs, which 
had not previously been required to meet any efficiency standard. In 
updating these regulations, DOE established two new definitions--direct 
operation and indirect operation EPSs. As defined in DOE's regulations 
at 10 CFR 430.2, a ``direct operation EPS'' is an EPS that can operate 
a consumer product that is not a battery charger without the assistance 
of a battery, whereas an ``indirect operation EPS'' is an EPS that 
cannot operate a consumer product (other than a battery charger) 
without the assistance of a battery. DOE intended that these terms be 
mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, so that any EPS would 
be either a direct or indirect operation EPS, but not both. The new 
regulations required that any direct-operation EPS (regardless of 
whether it was also a Class A EPS) would have to meet these new 
standards. Any indirect operation EPS would not be required to meet the 
new standards, but would still be required to comply with the Class A 
efficiency requirements if that EPS meets the definition of a Class A 
EPS. The Class A EPS definition is found in 42 U.S.C. 6291(36). DOE 
also updated the International Efficiency Marking Protocol to add a new 
mark, ``VI,'' to indicate compliance with the new efficiency 
requirements established for direct operation EPSs.
    The following chart summarizes the energy conservation standards 
and marking requirements based on whether the EPS is (1) a Class A or 
non-Class A EPS and (2) direct or indirect operation.

[[Page 61005]]

    Table III-2--Applicable Standards of Class A and Non-Class A EPSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Class A EPS        Non-Class A EPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation EPS...........  Level VI: 10 CFR     Level VI: 10 CFR
                                  430.32(w)(1)(ii).    430.32(w)(1)(ii).
Indirect Operation EPS.........  Level IV: 10 CFR     No Standards.
                                  430.32(w)(1)(i).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To clarify these requirements, DOE is proposing to add the above 
table to a new 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(iii).

H. Indirect Operation EPSs

    To distinguish between a direct and indirect operation EPS, the 
definition of an indirect operation EPS includes a specific method to 
determine whether an EPS is an indirect operation EPS. First, if the 
EPS can be connected to a battery-operated consumer product with 
removable batteries, then the batteries should be removed. Then, the 
EPS should be connected to mains power and an attempt to operate the 
product should be made. If the product cannot operate without the 
batteries, it is an indirect operation EPS. If the batteries cannot be 
removed, then the time necessary for a product in ``off-mode'' to turn 
on and become operational should be recorded when (1) the battery is 
completely charged and (2) when the battery is completely discharged. 
If the difference in these two conditions is greater than 5 seconds, 
then the EPS is an indirect operation EPS.
    Stakeholders asked whether an EPS that can be used with multiple 
end-use applications--some of which are operated directly and others 
indirectly--would be treated by DOE as an indirect or direct operation 
EPS. So long as an EPS can operate any consumer product directly, DOE 
considers it to be a direct operation EPS. If an EPS is shipped with a 
consumer product that the EPS can only operate indirectly, but that 
same EPS can also be used to directly operate another consumer product, 
DOE would still consider that EPS to be a direct operation EPS and 
subject to the applicable direct operation EPS efficiency standards.
    Stakeholders also asked whether an EPS that can operate a battery 
charger contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use 
product is considered an indirect or direct operation EPS. DOE notes 
that a battery charger is considered a consumer product in and of 
itself, and DOE is currently undertaking a rulemaking to consider 
establishing efficiency standards for battery chargers. With this in 
mind, DOE excluded battery chargers as a type of consumer product that 
a direct operation EPS can operate as part of the definition for a 
direct operation EPS in the external power supply and battery charger 
NOPR published on March 27, 2012. See 77 FR 18478. This was due in 
large part to the fact that the efficiency of an EPS that can only 
operate a battery charger, but not any other consumer product, may be 
covered by future efficiency standards for battery chargers. Therefore, 
an EPS that can only operate a battery charger in a separate physical 
enclosure from the end-use product, but not any other consumer product, 
would not be considered a direct operation EPS, and would therefore, 
not be subject to the efficiency standards for direct operation EPSs. 
See 79 FR at 7929. DOE is proposing to modify the indirect operation 
EPS definition to clearly include within its scope those EPSs that can 
only operate battery chargers contained in physical enclosures separate 
from the end-use products (but not other consumer products). The 
modified definition would specify that an indirect operation EPS is an 
EPS that (1) cannot operate a consumer product (that is not a battery 
charger) without the assistance of a battery or (2) solely provides 
power to a battery charger that is contained in a separate physical 
enclosure from the end-use product. DOE seeks feedback on this proposed 
amendment.

I. Scope of Coverage

    Congress established the definition of an external power supply to 
mean ``an external power supply circuit that is used to convert 
household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current 
to operate a consumer product'' (10 CFR 430.2). This definition 
outlines the distinguishing criteria for a product to be considered an 
EPS and, therefore, to be considered a covered product. While a covered 
product may be subject to energy conservation standards, DOE has 
established standards only for certain types of EPSs to date. So, while 
an EPS is a covered product, not all EPSs are subject to energy 
conservation standards. Currently, a Class A EPS must meet the 
standards prescribed in 10 CFR 430.32. Beginning in 2016, energy 
conservation standards will also apply to direct operation EPSs.
    Any product that meets the statutory definition of a Class A 
external power supply is currently subject to the no-load mode power 
and average active-mode efficiency requirements in 10 CFR 430.32(w). 
This definition specifies that a Class A EPS is one with the following 
six characteristics: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Two exclusions apply to the Class A External Power Supply 
definition. Devices that require Federal Food and Drug 
Administration listing and approval as a medical device in 
accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (21 U.S.C. 360(c)) or devices that power the charger of a 
detachable battery pack or charge the battery of a product that is 
fully or primarily motor operated are not considered Class A 
External Power Supplies. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower 
voltage AC or DC output;
     able to convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a 
time;
     sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use 
product that constitutes the primary load;
     contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-
use product;
     connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-
wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; 
and
     nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 
watts.
    DOE has received numerous inquiries from manufacturers requesting 
additional guidance on applying these six criteria. In order to ensure 
clarity and consistency for stakeholders and manufacturers, the 
following subsections discuss some of the most commonly asked questions 
about the definition of a Class A EPS.
1. Solid State Lighting
    DOE has received specific inquiries from manufacturers asking 
whether ``transformers'' used with solid state lighting (SSL), such as 
LED drivers used for landscape lighting, lighting strings, portable 
luminaries, and other lighting applications are subject to the Class A 
external power supply energy conservation standards. Provided the 
product meets all six characteristics of a Class A EPS, then it would 
be subject to the Class A EPS energy conservation standards, regardless 
of the end-use application. As discussed in the February 10, 2014 final 
rule, DOE has determined that there are no technical differences 
between the EPSs that power certain SSL (including LED) products and 
those that are used with other end-use applications. 79 FR 7845. As 
such,

[[Page 61006]]

DOE believes that many drivers, or transformers, used for SSL 
applications would meet the definition of a Class A EPS and would 
therefore be subject to the applicable energy conservation standards.
2. Convert to Only One AC or DC Output Voltage at the Same Time
    DOE has also received questions related to the Class A EPS 
criterion specifying that a given device can ``convert to only AC or DC 
output voltage at a time''. This requirement would be met if an EPS can 
provide two or more outputs at the same voltage at the same time or if 
it can provide two or more different output voltages, but not at the 
same time. These criteria would not be met if the EPS can provide more 
than one nominal lower-voltage AC or DC output at the same time; such 
an EPS would not be considered a Class A EPS, but would be considered a 
multiple-voltage EPS because it is designed to convert line voltage AC 
input into more than one simultaneous lower-voltage output. Direct 
operation multiple-voltage EPSs are subject to conservation standards 
beginning in 2016.
3. Power Over Ethernet
    DOE has also been asked about how the criterion requiring that a 
Class A EPS be connected to the end-use product via a removable or 
hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other 
wiring would apply to a Power over Ethernet (PoE) device. PoE describes 
a system which passes electrical power along with data on Ethernet 
cabling allowing a single cable to provide both data connection and 
electrical power. Specifically, stakeholders have asked if PoE 
Injectors, components that provide power to an Ethernet cable, or EPSs 
that are connected to the end-use product by an Ethernet cable would be 
considered Class A external power supplies. An EPS may be considered a 
Class A EPS if it connects to the end-use application using any type of 
electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring, including both 
removable and hard-wired connections. An Ethernet cable would meet 
these criteria, so an EPS that connects to the end-use product via an 
Ethernet cable would still be considered a Class A EPS and would be 
subject to the applicable energy conservation standards if it meets the 
other five criteria of a Class A EPS.
4. Security or Life Safety Alarm or Surveillance Systems
    Finally, DOE has received questions on the exemption from the no-
load mode energy consumption standards for certain EPSs manufactured 
before July 1, 2017. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E), an EPS that (1) is 
an AC-to-AC EPS; (2) has a nameplate output of 20 watts or more, and 
(3) is certified to the Secretary as being designed to be connected to 
a security or life safety alarm or surveillance system component does 
not have the meet the no-load mode requirements, provided it is 
manufactured before July 1, 2017 and is marked in accordance with the 
International Efficiency Marketing Protocol.\9\ See also 10 CFR 
430.32(w)(5) (codifying the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(3)(E)). Per 10 CFR 430.2, a security or life safety alarm or 
surveillance system means equipment designed and marketed to perform 
certain functions on a continuous basis, such as monitoring intrusion 
to real property, providing notification of threats to life safety or 
physical property, controlling access to real property or physical 
assets, or preventing unauthorized removal of physical assets. The term 
security or life safety alarm or surveillance system does not include 
any product with a principal function other than life safety, security, 
or surveillance that is designed and marketed with a built-in alarm or 
theft-deterrent feature or does not operate necessarily and 
continuously in active mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office (EERE): 
International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power 
Supplies Version 3.0 (available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0218).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of products that would meet this definition of security or 
life safety alarm or surveillance systems include home security system 
consoles, keyless entry electronic door locks, and smoke detectors 
because these products are designed and marketed to continuously 
monitor intrusion or access to real property, control access to 
property, and monitor threats to real property. On the other hand, 
landscape lighting with motion sensors, video cameras, and smart phones 
with theft deterrent features are examples of products with principal 
functions other than life safety, security, or surveillance that are 
designed and marketed with built-in alarm or theft deterrent features 
or that do not operate necessarily and continuously in active mode. 
These products would not be exempt from the no-load mode energy 
consumption standards. It should be noted that EPSs that receive the 
exemption are still required to meet the average active-mode efficiency 
requirements and that this exemption expires on July 1, 2017, so EPSs 
manufactured after this date will also be required to comply with the 
applicable no-load limits.

J. Sampling Plan

    For certification and compliance, manufacturers are required to 
rate each basic model according to the sampling provisions specified in 
10 CFR Part 429. The sampling plan for Class A EPSs can be found in 10 
CFR 429.37, which requires that any represented value of the estimated 
energy consumption of a basic model of a Class A EPS for which 
consumers would favor a lower value shall be greater than or equal to 
the higher of the mean of the sample or the upper 97.5 percent 
confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.05. DOE is also 
proposing to require manufacturers to provide the output current in 
ampere (A), which is currently only required if that information is not 
provided on the nameplate.
    Given that the recent energy conservation standards rule applies to 
both Class A EPSs and direct operation EPSs that do not meet the Class 
A definition, there is no longer a need to differentiate between Class 
A and non-Class A EPSs for the purposes of part 429. Instead, DOE 
proposes to amend 10 CFR 429.37 so that the sampling plan, which 
currently applies only to Class A EPSs, would be applied to any EPS 
subject to energy conservation standards. DOE seeks comment on this 
proposal to apply the sampling plan requirements to all EPSs subject to 
an energy conservation standard, regardless of whether they meet the 
Class A definition.

K. Effective Date and Compliance Date of Test Procedure

    If adopted, the effective date for this test procedure would be 30 
days after publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal 
Register. At that time, the new metrics and any other measure of energy 
consumption relying on these metrics may be represented pursuant to the 
final rule. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(c), energy consumption or 
efficiency representations by manufacturers must be based on the new 
test procedure and sampling plans starting 180 days after the date of 
publication of the test procedure final rule. Starting on that date, 
any such representations, including those made on marketing materials, 
Web sites (including qualification with a voluntary or State program), 
and product labels would be based on results generated using the 
proposed procedure as well as the sampling plan in 10 CFR part 429.

[[Page 61007]]

L. Impacts From the Test Procedure

    When proposing to amend a test procedure, DOE typically determines 
the extent to which, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter 
the measured energy efficiency of any covered product when compared to 
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines 
that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of 
a covered product to a significant extent, DOE would amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(2)).
    The proposed amendments would not alter the measured efficiency of 
EPSs. DOE expects that the rated values of EPSs tested under the 
current test method codified in Appendix Z would still be obtained when 
tested using today's proposed method because the proposal is not 
modifying the methods used to measure or calculate the rated values of 
an EPS that are used to determine whether that EPS would satisfy the 
regulatory conservation standards for average active-mode efficiency 
and no-load power. In other words, there should be no change in the 
measured results under the proposal. Rather, the proposed amendments 
would (1) harmonize DOE's procedure with the latest version of IEC 
62301 concerning the measurement equipment resolution and measurement 
uncertainties; (2) define and clarify how to test adaptive EPSs; (3) 
clarify the testing configurations to avoid introducing additional 
losses in testing cables; (4) clarify the testing of EPSs that are not 
capable of being tested at one or more loading conditions; (5) add an 
optional test for active-mode efficiency measurements at a 10 percent 
loading condition for both single-voltage and multiple-voltage EPSs; 
(6) add an optional measurement for output power factor; and (7) revise 
the sampling plan to include EPSs that will be covered by Federal 
efficiency standards as of 2016.
    In DOE's view, none of the proposed modifications will impact the 
measured energy use of tested EPSs because the fundamental testing 
methodology and certification process remains unchanged--i.e., the 
calculation of average active-mode efficiency or no-load power 
consumption would remain unchanged. Additionally, DOE's proposed steps 
to address how to connect test equipment to an EPS to avoid introducing 
electrical energy losses would clarify the test procedure to ensure 
accurate and repeatable results.
    DOE does not anticipate that the additional burden posed by these 
proposed changes, if any, are likely to be significant. None of these 
proposed amendments would involve changing the necessary testing 
equipment or add significant increases in testing time. Measuring the 
active-mode efficiency of the new 10-percent loading condition is 
optional. But even if this test is performed, it will not require any 
additional equipment that would be unnecessary for measuring the 
active-mode efficiency of the other loading conditions and will 
increase the total testing time for each unit by approximately 10 
minutes. Similarly, the revised uncertainty and resolution requirements 
will not mandate any changes to the necessary testing equipment.
    DOE does not believe the updated procedure will impose increased 
testing burden or alter the measured average active-mode efficiency or 
no-load power. While the proposed amendments would be required to be 
used beginning 180 days after publication of a final rule, 
manufacturers may begin using the amended test procedure immediately 
after a final rule is published.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    For manufacturers of EPSs, the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as 
``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the 
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small 
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 
30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) 
and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry 
description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/content/summary-size-standards-industry. EPS manufacturing is classified under NAICS 
335999, ``All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or less for 
an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
    DOE reviewed the proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. This proposed rule prescribes certain limited 
clarifying amendments to an already-existing test procedure that will 
help manufacturers and testing laboratories to consistently conduct 
that procedure when measuring the energy efficiency of an EPS, 
including in those instances where compliance with the applicable 
Federal energy conservation is being assessed. DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    DOE notes that there are no domestic manufacturers of EPSs. Given 
the absence of any domestic manufacturers of these products, there are 
no small business impacts to evaluate for purposes of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
    In addition, DOE expects any potential impact from its proposal to 
be minimal. As noted earlier, DOE's EPS test procedure has existed 
since 2005 and the modest clarifications in the proposal are unlikely 
to create a burden on any manufacturers. These proposed revisions, if 
adopted, would harmonize the instrumentation resolution and uncertainty 
requirements with the second edition of the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62301 standard when measuring standby 
power along with other international standards programs. They would 
also include modifications to the measurements specified by IEC 62301, 
including changes that would address active-mode efficiency loading 
points

[[Page 61008]]

and require that power factor be recorded for each loading condition. 
The proposal would also clarify certain testing set-up requirements. 
These updates would not are expected to increase the testing burden on 
EPS manufacturers.
    For these reasons, DOE certifies that the proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of EPS must certify to DOE that their products comply 
with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE 
test procedures for EPSs including any amendments adopted for those 
test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification 
and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, including external power supplies. (76 FR 12422 
(March 7, 2011)) The collection-of-information requirement for the 
certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by 
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been 
approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting 
burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per 
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE has determined that this proposal, which would add clarifying 
amendments to an existing test procedure, falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and DOE's 
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this 
proposed rule would amend the existing test procedures without 
affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, 
therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this 
rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 
1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or 
amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of 
that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Pub. L. No. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that 
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates 
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national 
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)-(b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency 
to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected 
officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially 
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 
1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-

[[Page 61009]]

counsel. DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its 
statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the 
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements 
do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation 
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring 
the energy efficiency of external power supplies is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by 
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy 
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    Certain of the proposed amendments would incorporate testing 
methods contained in the following standard: IEC Standard 62301 
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power.'' It 
would also incorporate a testing method developed by the State of 
California, section 1604(u)(1) of the CEC 2007 Appliance Efficiency 
Regulations. DOE has evaluated these testing standards and tentatively 
concludes that the IEC standard complies with the requirements of 
section 32(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act, (i.e., that 
they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public 
participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney 
General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test 
procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.

V. Public Participation

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the

[[Page 61010]]

comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have 
successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    1. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to incorporate the accuracy 
and precision requirements found in the current version of IEC 62301 
(2nd ed.) as part of DOE's external power supply test procedure. Would 
the incorporation of these requirements be sufficient to ensure that 
the measurements obtained during testing when following the procedure 
are accurate, consistent, and repeatable? What potential problems, if 
any, could occur if DOE were to incorporate these requirements into its 
test procedure?
    2. DOE seeks comment on its proposed clarification regarding the 
test set-up when measuring output power with a combination of a 
voltmeter and ammeter. Is the additional language sufficient to ensure 
that tests are repeatable and that the testing set-up is unambiguous? 
Are there any potential problems with mandating this type of connection 
that could negatively impact the efficiency measurement and ultimately 
a manufacturer's ability to comply with the federal standard?
    3. DOE seeks comment on allowing manufacturers with products that 
limit the current under certain loading conditions to certify their 
products using an average efficiency metric of all the load conditions 
in the DOE test procedure that can be tested. Would allowing 
manufacturers to certify their products in this fashion lead to gaming 
of the test procedure or a circumvention of the standard? Would issuing 
waivers on a case-by-case basis be a preferable alternative? What is 
the likelihood that manufacturers will design around certain loading 
conditions to take advantage of this new approach in order to more 
easily comply with the federal standard?
    4. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to optionally measure power 
factor at each loading condition. Does this put unnecessary additional 
burden on manufacturers for testing? Does DOE need to establish a 
methodology for measuring power factor beyond what is outlined in IEC 
62301 (2nd Ed.)? How significant is power factor in determining the 
overall efficiency of an EPS? Would power factor measurements be 
repeatable?
    5. DOE seeks comment on whether the proposed definition of an 
adaptive external power supply accurately describes this new type of 
EPS. Is the definition too broad such that other single-voltage 
operation EPSs or battery chargers may now be considered adaptive EPSs? 
Is there a more appropriate term than ``adaptive''?
    6. DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to testing adaptive 
EPSs. Should such products be considered EPSs? Can these types of EPSs 
be tested using a test jig provided by the manufacturer? If so, what 
output power rating should be considered for certification? If not, are 
there methods DOE should consider to improve the test procedure in 
regards to EPSs that communicate with their loads?
    7. DOE seeks comment on how to determine the highest and lowest 
voltages on adaptive EPSs. Should these numbers be required for 
submission during certification? Should the test procedure be modified 
to measure such values?
    8. DOE is seeking comment on adding language to clarify the testing 
set-up at 0 percent load. Is stating that the EPS must be in no-load 
mode before the EPS is tested at 0 percent load necessary? For adaptive 
EPSs, is there potential to capture different results when the EPS is 
disconnected versus if the load was simply reduced to zero but still 
physically connected to the output of the EPS?
    9. DOE seeks comment on how to rate and certify adaptive EPSs. Is 
requiring that manufacturers submit data at both voltage extremes 
overly burdensome? Are there any technical limitations to requiring 
that these measurements be taken and submitted? Are there more 
appropriate ways of rating such EPSs?
    10. DOE seeks comment on including an additional, optional loading 
condition at 10 percent of the rated nameplate output power of the unit

[[Page 61011]]

under test in the EPS test procedure. Would testing an EPS at 10 
percent load more completely represent the achievable efficiencies of 
the EPS under test? Would the efficiencies recorded at this loading 
point be significantly lower from those taken at the loading points in 
the current DOE test procedure?
    11. DOE seeks comment on its proposed revision to the definition of 
``indirect operation external power supply''. Do these changes more 
accurately define what is meant by an indirect operation EPS? Is there 
the potential for this new definition to increase the scope of coverage 
of the EPS standard?
    12. DOE seeks comment on creating a single sampling plan for both 
Class A and non-Class A EPSs. Is there any reason that all EPSs within 
the scope of federal standard should not be subject to the same 
sampling requirements? Are the manufacturing variations somehow 
different between different groups of EPSs that would necessitate 
separate sampling requirements?

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

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

10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 
parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Section 429.37 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  429.37  External Power Supplies.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following public product-specific information:
    (i) External power supplies: The average active mode efficiency as 
a percent (%), no-load mode power consumption in watts (W), nameplate 
output power in watts (W), and the output current in amperes (A) of the 
basic model or the output current in amperes (A) of the highest- and 
lowest-voltage models within the external power supply design family.
    (ii) Switch-selectable single-voltage external power supplies: The 
average active mode efficiency as a percentage (%) value, no-load mode 
power consumption in watts (W), at the lowest and highest selectable 
output voltages, nameplate output power in watts (W), and the output 
current in amperes (A).
    (iii) Adaptive single-voltage external power supplies: The average 
active mode efficiency at the highest achievable output voltage as a 
percentage (%) value, the average active mode efficiency at the lowest 
achievable output voltage as a percentage (%) value, nameplate output 
power in watts (W), and the output current in amperes (A) at the 
highest and lowest achievable output voltages. No-load mode power 
consumption in watts (W).
    (iv) External power supplies that are exempt from no-load mode 
requirements under Sec.  430.32(w)(1)(iii): A statement that the 
product is designed to be connected to a security or life safety alarm 
or surveillance system component, the average active mode efficiency as 
a percentage (%) value, the nameplate output power in watts (W), and 
the certification report must also include the output current in 
amperes (A) of the basic model or the output current in amperes (A) of 
the highest- and lowest-voltage models within the external power supply 
design family.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
4. Section 430.2 is amended by revising the introductory text of the 
definition of ``Indirect operation external power supply'' to read as 
follows:

Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Indirect operation external power supply means an EPS that cannot 
operate a consumer product (that is not a battery charger) without the 
assistance of a battery, as determined by the steps in paragraphs 
(1)(i) through (v) of this definition, or an EPS that solely provides 
power to a battery charger that is contained in a separate physical 
enclosure from the end-use product:
* * * * *

Sec.  430.3  [Amended]

0
5. Section 430.3 is amended by removing from paragraph (o)(4), ``and 
X'' and adding ``X, and Z'' in its place.
0
6. Section 430.32 is amended by adding paragraph (w)(iii) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (w) * * *
    (iii) The following table summarizes the energy conservation 
standards that are applicable to external power supplies beginning on 
February 10, 2016.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Class A EPS                             Non-Class A EPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation EPS........  Level VI:...............................  Level VI:
                              10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii).................  10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii).
Indirect Operation EPS......  Level IV:...............................  No Standards.
                              10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(i)..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61012]]

* * * * *
0
7. Appendix Z to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
0
a. In section 2., Definitions, by
0
ii. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and (f), and paragraphs 
(f) through (x) as paragraphs (h) through (z), respectively; and
0
iii. Adding new paragraphs (d) and (g);
0
b. In section 3, Test Apparatus and General Instructions, by
0
i. Revising paragraphs (a), and (b)(i)(A); and
0
ii. Removing paragraphs (b)(i)(B) and (b)(i)(C);
0
c. In section 4, Test Measurement, by:
0
i. Revising paragraphs (a)(i), and (a)(ii);
0
ii. Adding a new paragraph (a)(i)(D); and
0
iii. Revising paragraphs (b)(i)(A)(3), (b)(i)(A)(5), (b)(i)(A)(6), 
(b)(i)(B)(2), (b)(i)(C), (b)(i)(E), (b)(i)(F), and (b)(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    2. Definitions. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) Adaptive external power supply means an external power 
supply that can alter its output voltage during active mode based on 
an established communication protocol with the end-use application 
without any user-generated action.
* * * * *
    (g) Average Active Mode Efficiency means the average of the 
loading conditions (100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 
percent of its nameplate output current) for which it can sustain 
the output current.
* * * * *
    3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions:
    (a) Single-Voltage External Power Supply. The test apparatus, 
standard testing conditions, and instructions for testing external 
power supplies shall conform to the requirements specified in 
section 4, ``General Conditions for Measurement,'' of the CEC's 
``Test Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Single-
Voltage External AC-DC and AC-AC Power Supplies,'' August 11, 2004, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3) with the following two 
exceptions.
    (i) In section 4.b of the CEC test method, ``Measuring 
Equipment'', measurements shall conform to the uncertainty 
requirements specified in section 4.4.1 of the second edition of IEC 
62301 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3).
    (ii) When following section 4.d of the CEC test method, ``Test 
Voltage'', the applied test voltage shall only be 115 volts, 60 Hz.
    (b) Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply. * * *
    (i) Verifying Accuracy and Precision of Measuring Equipment
    (A) Any power measurements recorded, as well as any power 
measurement equipment utilized for testing, shall conform to the 
uncertainty and resolution requirements outlined in Section 4, 
``General conditions for measurements'', as well as Annexes B, 
``Notes on the measurement of low power modes'', and D, 
``Determination of uncertainty of measurement'', of IEC 62301 (2nd 
Ed.) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3).
* * * * *
    4. Test Measurement:
    (a) * * *
    (i) Standby Mode and Active Mode Measurement -- When measuring 
standby mode (i.e., no-load mode) energy consumption and active mode 
efficiency, follow the steps specified in section 5, ``Measurement 
Approach'' of the CEC's ``Test Method for Calculating the Energy 
Efficiency of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power 
Supplies,'' August 11, 2004, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.3) EXCEPT use the loading conditions listed in Table 1 of this 
section. Power factor may be measured at each Loading Condition (1, 
2, 3, 4, and 5 in Table 1 of this section) and be recorded 
separately. For Loading Condition 6, place the unit under test in 
no-load mode, disconnect any additional signal connections to the 
unit under test, and measure input power. In section 5.b, the 
loading conditions are:

    Table 1--Loading Conditions for a Single-Voltage Unit Under Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Percentage of Nameplate Output Current
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Load Condition 1.......................  100% of Nameplate Output
                                          Current  2%
Load Condition 2.......................  75% of Nameplate Output Current
                                           2%.
Load Condition 3.......................  50% of Nameplate Output Current
                                           2%.
Load Condition 4.......................  25% of Nameplate Output Current
                                           2%.
Load Condition 5.......................  10% of Nameplate Output Current
                                           2% (optional).
Load Condition 6.......................  0%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test switch-selectable single-voltage external power supplies 
twice--once at the highest nameplate output voltage and once at the 
lowest. Test adaptive external power supplies twice--once at the 
highest achievable output voltage and once at the lowest. Any 
additional metering equipment such as voltmeters and/or ammeters 
used in conjunction with resistive or electronic loads as described 
in section 5.c must be connected directly to the end of the output 
cable of the UUT.
* * * * *
    (D) If an external power supply cannot sustain output at one or 
more of loading conditions 1-4 as specified in Table 1 of this 
section, the external power supply should only be tested at the 
loading conditions for which it can sustain output. In these cases, 
the average active-mode efficiency shall be the average of the 
loading conditions for which it can sustain the output. In the case 
where the external power supply lists both an instantaneous and 
continuous output current, it shall be tested at the continuous 
condition only.
    (ii) Off-Mode Measurement--If the external power supply unit 
under test incorporates manual on-off switches, the unit under test 
shall be placed in off mode, and its power consumption in off mode 
measured and recorded. The measurement of the off mode energy 
consumption shall conform to the requirements specified in section 
5, ``Measurement Approach,'' of the CEC's ``Test Method for 
Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc 
and Ac-Ac Power Supplies,'' August 11, 2004 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.3), with two exceptions. In section 5.a, 
``Preparing UUT [Unit Under Test] for Test,'' all manual on-off 
switches shall be placed in the ``off'' position for the 
measurement. In section 5.d, ``Testing Sequence,'' the technician 
shall consider the UUT stable if, over 5 minutes with samples taken 
at least once every second, the AC input power does not drift from 
the maximum value observed by more than 1 percent or 50 milliwatts, 
whichever is greater. The only loading condition that will be 
measured for off mode is ``Load Condition 6'' in Table 1 of this 
appendix. for switch-selectable single-voltage external power 
supplies, measure the off mode power consumption twice-- once at the 
highest nameplate output voltage and once at the lowest.
    (b) Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply. * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) After this warm-up period, the technician shall monitor AC 
input power for a period of 5 minutes to assess the stability of the 
unit under test. If the power level does not drift by more than 1 
percent from the maximum value observed, the unit under test can be 
considered stable and measurements can be recorded at the end of the 
5-minute period. Measurements at subsequent loading conditions, 
listed in Table 2 of this section, can then be conducted under the 
same 5-minute stability instructions. Only one warm-up period of 30 
minutes is required for each unit under test at the beginning of the 
test procedure.
* * * * *
    (5) The unit under test shall be tested at the loading 
conditions listed in Table 2 of this section, de-rated per the 
proportional allocation method presented in the subsection 
immediately following Table 2.

   Table 2--Loading Conditions for a Multiple-Voltage Unit Under Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Percentage of Nameplate Output Current
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Load Condition 1.......................  100% of De-rated Nameplate
                                          Output Current 
                                          2%.
Load Condition 2.......................  75% of De-rated Nameplate
                                          Output Current 
                                          2%.
Load Condition 3.......................  50% of De-rated Nameplate
                                          Output Current 
                                          2%.
Load Condition 4.......................  25% of De-rated Nameplate
                                          Output Current 
                                          2%.

[[Page 61013]]

 
Load Condition 5.......................  10% of De-rated Nameplate
                                          Output Current  2%
                                          (optional).
Load Condition 6.......................  0%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Input and output power measurements shall be conducted in 
sequence from Loading Condition 1 to Loading Condition 5, as 
indicated in Table 2 of this section. For Loading Condition 6, place 
the unit under test in no-load mode, disconnect any additional 
signal connections to the unit under test, and measure input power.
    (B) * * *
    (2) If D >=1, then loading every bus to its nameplate output 
current does not exceed the overall nameplate output power for the 
power supply. In this case, each output bus will simply be loaded to 
the percentages of its nameplate output current listed in Table 2 of 
this section. However, if D pre>
```